Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Southern Rhodesia) Order, 1964, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

DEATH DUTIES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (Sweden) Order, 1964, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Vulcain Reactor

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, what progress has been made in the development of the Vulcain reactor; and what has been the share of the cost borne by the Atomic Energy Authority.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. James Boyden): Basic engineering and physics work forming part of the programme of

research and development into the Vulcain reactor is now almost complete and a Vulcain-type core will be loaded in the Belgian experimental reactor, BR3, in mid-1965, for irradiation to high burn-up. The cost borne to date by the Atomic Energy Authority is approximately £1·6 million.

Mr. Digby: Does this mean that any difficulties in the development of this reactor have now been overcome?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Marples: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at this stage of the development of the Vulcain reactor the only way to make further progress is to build an actual ship, and will he say which Minister is responsible for the building of a ship? Is it the Minister of Technology, the Minister of Transport or the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Boyden: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known the answer to that question.

Mr. Marples: I put a perfectly serious question to the hon. Gentleman. My knowledge of the Vulcain is that the only way in which we shall make progress is by the actual building of a ship. I was asking the hon. Gentleman if he agreed with that or not and which Minister was responsible for the building of a ship—was it the Minister of Technology, the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Boyden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down that question.

Mr. Marples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that this flows from the original Question put down by my hon. Friend. It is relevant to the original Question, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should treat the House with more courtesy.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman addressed me on a point of order. None arises. I cannot make the Minister answer if he does not want to.

Automation

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, what progress is


being made in co-ordinating the results of studies being made of progress in the field of automation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: The need for formal arrangements for co-ordination in addition to the ordinary processes of consultation between the Departments concerned is under consideration.

Mr. Smith: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the biggest task of this new Ministry must be to chart the progress of automation and to gather together all the relevant information about it? Can he say in what way the recently announced intention of the sponsorship of four key and progressive industries is going to help in this direction?

Mr. Boyden: The Minister is, of course, considering this, and I have no further statement to make at the moment.

Industrial Productivity

Sir J. Eden: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, if he will make a statement about his plans to increase productivity in British industry.

Mr. Boyden: Technological advance is a key factor in increasing productivity and much of the work of the D.S.I.R. research stations and the grant-aided research associations assists such improvements. The right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to intensify this work. He is setting up expert teams to study what needs to be done in a number of selected industries both by the industries themselves and the Government to increase their rate of technological growth.

Sir J. Eden: In a recent Press interview, the Minister referred to his excitement at the prospect of the plans which he had in mind. May we be told a little more about what excites him in this regard? What, for example, are the particular powers he has it in mind to acquire? Will he compel companies to invest? Will he compel unions to drop restrictive practices, because unless that is done there can be very little technological progress?

Mr. Boyden: I think the excitement will come when the Minister comes to the House.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would the Under-Secretary tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the best way to get productive investment in industry is to allow individuals to invest more money themselves rather than the Government?

Mr. Boyden: The Minister will take note of that question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that full use is not being made of the Dounreay scientific organisation in regard to productivity? Will he pay some attention to using the scientists who are there for the purpose of applying more scientific methods to productivity in industry?

Mr. Boyden: I know my hon. and learned Friend's interest in Dounreay. I can assure him that the scientists are being properly used. In any case, there is a Question later on the Order Paper dealing with this subject.

Sir Knox Cunningham: When may we expect the excitement of the Minister answering Questions in the House?

Mr. Boyden: Very shortly.

Uranium Fuels (Reprocessing Contracts)

4. Mr. Ridley: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, what contracts the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has obtained from abroad for the reprocessing of uranium fuels.

Mr. Boyden: The Atomic Energy Authority has so far obtained seven contracts for reprocessing uranium fuels from material testing and experimental reactors in Australia, Denmark, West Germany, India and France, and from the Latina nuclear power station in Italy.

Mr. Ridley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most valuable form of export earnings and one which is likely to increase in the future? Will he give an assurance to the House that nothing the Minister does in the defence field is likely to affect our capacity to undertake these reprocessing contracts?

Mr. Boyden: The Atomic Energy Authority is determined to exploit to the maximum possible extent the commercial advantages of the new plant at Wind-scale, which is the largest commercial reprocessing plant in the world, and that will contribute to what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Nuclear Power Station (Dounreay)

6. Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, whether he has now considered the construction of a high output pilot power station using a fast breeder reactor; and whether he proposes to locate this at Dounreay.

9. Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, if he is aware of the need for urgency in arriving at a decision on the building and siting of the prototype fast reactor; and when he will give his decision.

Mr. Boyden: The decision to proceed with a prototype fast reactor must await the outcome of the current development programme based on the experimental reactor at Dounreay and particularly on the design of the fuel. It will be some time before the Authority will be in a position to submit a proposal to the Government.

Mr. Osborn: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are many who will be disappointed with this progress? Some of us had the privilege of visiting this establishment some fifteen months ago and we had hoped by now to have had positive proposals for a pilot project to take advantage of some very valuable experiments and research which have already been carried out.

Mr. Boyden: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed. There is still considerable work to be done before the site is decided upon and the development takes place. It is not likely that the Atomic Energy Authority will be in a position to submit plans until the end of next year.

Mr. Marples: May I again ask the Under-Secretary which Minister will be in charge of this fast breeder reactor?

Will it be the Minister of Technology or the Minister of Power?

Mr. Boyden: Presumably, if the Bill which is now before the House is expedited and passed, it will be the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Mackie: When the Minister is making his decision, will he take into account social factors arising in the north of Scotland and also the technical factors, in that there are assembled there a team which has been already extremely successful in leading the world in the production of an experimental fast reactor?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir. The Government are very conscious of the social and economic needs of the north of Scotland, and these will be an important factor to be considered in coming to a decision.

Mr. Dalyell: Why cannot the Minister tell us definitely that, if we are to go ahead with the prototype fast breeder reactor, it will certainly be at Dounreay and not at alternative sites?

Mr. Boyden: There are more considerations to it than the social and economic ones, but these are extremely important. The scientific considerations also will come into this in a very important way.

Mr. Peyton: Referring back to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), will whichever Minister is in charge of this project ensure that the views of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is after all the sole operator, are fully considered and given the prominence they deserve?

Mr. Boyden: I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to table a Question on that.

Research Projects

7. Mr. Webster: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, what new research projects he has now started; what is the cost to public funds; what research projects he has now cancelled; and what is the saving to public funds.

Mr. Boyden: I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to the hon. Member on these points on 1st December.

Mr. Webster: Is the Under-Secretary aware that both those Answers were,


"None, Sir"? If there is the same rate of progress after sixty days as there was after thirty days, may I venture the hope that if his Minister does ever get elected to the House he will not allow his Parliamentary duties to interfere with this dynamic rate of progress?

Mr. Boyden: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir", and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be surprised.

Machine Tools

Mr. Orme: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, whether, in view of the drain on sterling because of the importation of machine tools, he will take steps to set up an experimental and development centre for machine tools and the facilities for manufacturing these tools to be publicly owned and in a position to compete with private industry.

Mr. Boyden: The right hon. Gentleman is making an urgent study of the problems of the machine tool industry with a view to assessing what is the best contribution he can make to their solution.

Mr. Orme: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to impress upon the Minister the fact that some of us on this side see the failure of the machine tool industry to meet the requirements of the nation at present as a problem requiring urgent action?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Sir A. E. Meyer: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this Question betrays a truly terrifying misunderstanding of what trade and industry are all about and that this misunderstanding is very prevalent amongst hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Boyden: Certainly nobody on this side is trying to damn the trade, if that is the impression given in the Question. My right hon. Friend will do his best to assist the trade in assisting the nation in its export drive and in other ways.

Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that if terror is to be introduced into this discussion it is terror on the part of those who are watching the interests of

our economy? Is he further aware that a technical examination of this industry should be accompanied by an examination of the distribution system in this country whereby distributors of domestically produced machine tools are also substantial importers of machine tools from abroad, for no better reason than pure profit, of course?

Mr. Boyden: Yes. The Minister is well aware of these facts. I should have thought that the assistance that he will be giving to this industry would have nothing to do with terror, but would be appreciated.

Mr. Woodnutt: Would the Under-Secretary make it clear to his hon. Friends that in 1963 the machine tool industry reached an all-time record for exports and this year will increase them even further? If they should feel more help should be given, would it not be appropriate to make an increased subscription to the Machine Tool Industry Research Association at Macclesfield rather than set up a Government institution of the type suggested in the Question.

Mr. Boyden: Consideration will be given to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in the second part of his supplementary question. As to the trade statistics, imports of machine tools in 1963 were £26·3 million. The estimate for 1964 is £35 million. Exports are about the same this year as they were last year, so the situation is very serious.

International Congress on Human Relations

Mr. Brian Harrison: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, whether his department is to be represented at the International Congress on Human Relations in Melbourne in May, 1965.

Mr. Boyden: The right honourable Gentleman has no information about this congress. He would be glad to have any information the hon. Member may have.

Mr. Harrison: I am very disappointed to hear that the information has not reached the right hon. Gentleman. Would the Under-Secretary agree that this is an extremely important factor in any


advance that there may be in automation and that it is therefore essential for his Department to be represented at international congresses of this type?

Mr. Boyden: I quite agree that the subject is very important, but inquiries have been made fairly extensively, including at Australia House, and there was no information there at all.

Polaris Base, Holy Loch

Mr. Marten: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, what tests the Atomic Energy Authority has carried out to check the radioactivity of the waters around Holy Loch.

Mr. Boyden: None, Sir. The Atomic Energy Authority has no responsibility for monitoring Holy Loch. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Marten: While realising that this is not quite the answer that I expected, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, nevertheless, whether he realises that the Minister of Technology carried out a passionate campaign against the formation of this American base? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is high time that that Minister withdrew some of the statements he made now that he has joined the Government?

Mr. Boyden: I thought that the hon. Member was seeking information.

Aircraft Industry (Concord and TSR2 Projects)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, as representing the Minister of Technology, what steps he is taking to provide employment opportunities, within the industries for which his Department is the sponsoring authority, for technicians who may be displaced from the British aircraft industry as the result of cancellation or reduction of the Concord and TSR2 projects.

Mr. Boyden: It is not part of the Minister's responsibilities to provide employment opportunities in the way suggested. As the hon. Member knows, the future of the Concord and TSR2 projects is still under review.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Answer will give very little comfort to large numbers of my constituents whose employment has been placed in jeopardy by the Government? Would he not agree that, in any case, we cannot possibly afford any substantial brain drain out of the British aircraft industry at this stage of our technological situation?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir, I am not so aware, and I hope not. The responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is to look after a redundancy situation if that arises, as has been done under previous Ministries. This will be done, as in the past, if the occasion should arise. The question is theoretical.

Sir J. Eden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the TSR2 is a prime example of British technological achievement and skill and that the whole future of the British Aircraft Corporation is bound up with the future of this aircraft? Is it not high time also that we had a statement on the future of the Concord, which I understood we were to have before the House rose for. the Summer Recess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— before the winter? How much longer are we to wait for this announcement?

Mr. Boyden: I hope that the weather will be as the hon. Member hopes. As the hon. Member knows, a panel has been set up to look into this matter. As for unemployment, I hope the House knows that I am as interested to see that men are in work as anybody.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Advisers (Salaries)

Mr. Wingfied Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the salaries of the four paid Government advisers exceed or are less than the relevant Civil Service scales; and on what basis these salaries were negotiated.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the advisers mentioned in my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary's Reply to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) on 10th November. The four advisers fill new posts for which previously there were no


Civil Service scales. The salaries were determined in the light of the responsibilities of each of the posts would carry, account being taken of whether the adviser would work full-time or part-time.

Mr. Digby: Anyhow, have not events shown that a system of payment by results would have been more appropriate?

Mr. Callaghan: I thought the complaint was that we were getting too many results.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say what Ministers would have been paid if those who were responsible for the £800 million balance of-payments deficit had been so paid?

Government Overseas Borrowing

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now decided whether to publish details of Government borrowing from overseas sources.

Mr. Callaghan: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is taking so long to decide whether or not to carry on the practice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and virtually advocated by the present Prime Minister? Is there some doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind whether the Prime Minister is right on this subject?

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that there will be no doubt on either side of the House about the necessity of preserving the integrity of sterling. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will keep this in mind in their public and private utterances.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The Chancellor can rest assured that we on this side of the House are anxious to see the integrity of sterling preserved. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to launch an all-party appeal, will he on his side drop some of the Government's proposals, such as the nationalisation of iron and steel, which can do nothing for our economy and can only harm us in the eyes of people overseas?

Mr. Callaghan: That is exactly the sort of statement that is registered overseas and does a good deal of damage.

Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman says, as he rightly does, that certain information should not be made available, why do the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues continue to blame us for not making that information public in the past?

Mr. Callaghan: I see where the right hon. Gentleman is getting to, but in view of his comments last week when I was in Paris I should have thought that a period of silence from him was called for.

Tax Allowances (School Fees)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce appropriate tax relief for those parents who relieve the pressure of numbers on the national educational system by sending their children to independent schools.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): These parents qualify for child allowance subject to the ordinary conditions; and I cannot agree that there is sufficient ground for giving them extra tax relief.

Mr. Mathew: Will the Financial Secretary not ask his right hon. Friend to look at this matter again? Would he not agree that it is in the country's interests that these parents should put the education of their children as a first charge on what are often very slender resources, and often at great sacrifice? Is not this an object which should be encouraged by the Government, and should they not be given some incentive and encouragement by way of tax relief?

Mr. MacDermot: I should be content to accept the argument of my hon. Friend the present Economic Secretary on 30th May, 1963, that this proposal would amount to a tax subsidy for independent schools for the benefit of those who choose to spend their money in this way on behalf of their children, and also the argument of my predecessor the former Financial Secretary that it would be contrary to the general rule that the Income Tax system of personal allowances cannot take into account in detail the various expenses that individual taxpayers incur.

Mr. Orme: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that many of us on this side of the House feel that it is wrong that people should be able to purchase


education for their children which is superior to the general rule in the country and that we advocate a State system which will give equal opportunity to all children?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear these considerations in mind. Matters of educational policy are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: In view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider publishing in HANSARD a list of members of the Government who did not go to a State school and of hon. and right hon. Members opposite who do not intend to send their children there?

Post-war Credits

Mr. Mathew: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to accelerate the repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend cannot do so in present circumstances.

Mr. Mathew: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman say how soon this long-outstanding debt will be extinguished at the present rate of repayment?

Mr. William Hamilton: Thirteen years.

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot say how long it will take, but the position is that over two-thirds of these credits have now been repaid. Over £500 million have been repaid and some £25 million have been set off against arrears of tax.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can the Financial Secretary assure the House that the rate of repayment and the extension of categories for repayment will not be slower than it has been for the last thirteen years?

Mr. MacDermot: It certainly will not be slower. As the hon. Member knows, apart from various hardship cases entitling repayment, men can claim repayment at the age of 60 and women at the age of 55. By the natural processes of time, this will result in speedier repayment as the years go by.

Disabled Persons (Invalid Vehicles)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek powers to enable registered disabled persons to claim relief from Income Tax on the insurance, taxation, maintenance and running expenses of their invalid vehicles.

Mr. MacDermot: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman have a careful look at this between now and the time when the next Budget is introduced? Is he aware that there is a schoolmaster in my constituency who is crippled by polio and who must have considerable expenses over and above those of his able-bodied colleagues? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if this man were someone who required protective clothing he would be able to claim relief from Income Tax? Will he keep these considerations in mind?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. I will certainly bear the hon. Member's suggestions in mind. The hon. Member has written to me about the case to which he has referred. Some of these disabled people qualify for an allowance from the Ministry of Health.

Burma (Company Taxation)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the effective percentage rates of taxation on profits levied by the Burmese Government on British companies in respect of their operations in Burma.

Mr. MacDermot: I understand that such profits are charged to Burmese tax on the slice system at rates that rise to 99 per cent. on the slice of profits exceeding 300,000 kyats (or £22,500).

Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that such excessive taxation really amounts to de facto expropriation without compensation? Does he further agree that if no firm action is taken to protect British investments abroad in this way, there is a real danger that other nations will be tempted to buy their way out of their economic difficulties by seizing


British assets and offering unreasonable compensation?

Mr. MacDermot: As to the first part of that question, I agree. As to the second part, the way in which we can best assist companies and persons in Burma is by improving our relations with them, which is what we are seeking to do.

Mr. Maudling: Is the Financial Secretary further aware that the position of British companies operating in countries like Burma with a high internal tax structure would be gravely affected by corporation tax?

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot see how they will be gravely affected if they are already paying tax at 99 per cent.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Gilt-edged Security Holders' Association regarding his capital gains tax proposals; and what answers he has sent.

Mr. Prior: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision he intends to make to relieve from capital gains tax long-term holders of Government stock who are forced to sell at prices below their purchase price but above their value on Budget day, 1966.

Mr. Callaghan: I received from the Association of Gilt-edged Security Holders on 19th November a letter suggesting that holders of undated Government stock should be exempted from the provisions of the capital gains tax on the grounds that they should not be taxed when selling stock at a price above its 1965 Budget day valuation but below the original purchase price. A reply was sent on 3rd December explaining that I do not propose that the charge to capital gains tax arising on a sale after next Budget day should be on an amount greater than any gain that is realised. There will thus be no charge when there is in fact an overall loss. This point was again made clear in my Answer of 8th December.

Mr. Mills: Is the Chancellor in broad sympathy with the Gilt-edged Security Holders' Association? Does he realise

the very real plight of many of the holders of this stock?

Mr. Callaghan: On this point, yes, but to go wider and talk about the general aims of the Gilt-edged Security Holders' Association would be outside the limits of the Question.

Mr. Prior: Whilst I am grateful for the Chancellor's reply, may I ask whether he realises the grave concern which exists generally about gilt-edged stocks? Will he make a further announcement now which would remove some of the anxiety and the clouds now hanging over these stocks?

Mr. Callaghan: Question No. 21 deals with that.

Mr. Maudling: The question of the position of gilt-edged really is a serious one. Cannot the Chancellor do something to help in this matter? It would be very valuable if he could clear up this uncertainty about the position of gilt-edged securities.

Mr. Callaghan: Question No. 21.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the concern caused to holders of undated Government stock by his forecast proposals on the operation of a capital gains tax, he will exempt such stock from its operations.

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make provision to avoid liability to tax on apparent capital gains arising from a fall in the purchasing power of the £ sterling.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exclude bloodstock from his proposed capital gains tax.

Captain Orr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to exempt small family businesses from the effects of his proposed capital gains tax.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to allow for changes in the value of money in assessing capital gains for purposes of taxation; and whether he will suggest a suitable index to be used as a deflator.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his plans


for off-setting losses in his proposed capital gains tax; and whether capital losses made by reason of forced sales of Government stock will be balanced against other capital gains.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the capital gains tax will not be charged on betting and gambling gains.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether stamp collections will be assessable for capital gains tax; and whether parents will be liable to any capital gains achieved by their children in this field.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to exempt owner-occupiers of land from the provisions of the proposed capital gains tax; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when framing his proposed capital gains tax, he will consider exemption in cases where property has to be realised as the result of compulsory purchase orders.

Mr. Callaghan: In my Answer of 8th December, I stated that in reforming the taxation system I was ready to consider proposals that representative bodies might care to put forward. These are now reaching the Board of Inland Revenue and I am considering them in the course of formulating my detailed proposals. Meantime, I have nothing to add to the Answer I have already given.

Mr. Mills: In thanking the Chancellor for answering the Question, may I ask him to look carefully at this problem as many of the people concerned are elderly folk, particularly in my constituency, and they have enough problems already without adding the problems of a capital gains tax?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the problem of undated Government stock concerns elderly people in view of the Answer which I have given to the hon. Member on the previous Question. It is a far different problem.

Mr. Higgins: Would not the Chancellor agree, in regard to the first part of Question No. 51, that this is not something upon which he need spend any further thought? It is simply a question

of saying that this will not be a capital tax but only a capital gains tax if it comes about. He must surely be in a position now to say that he will take into account the effect which changes in the value of money may have on assets. Therefore, he should now be able to assure the House that he will use some deflator to ensure that the change in the value of money is taken into account. Otherwise, the tax merely becomes a charter for inflation.

Mr. Callaghan: Despite the tempting nature of that question, I cannot answer it now. It would be introducing a wide and new principle in the whole of our taxation system.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a much fuller statement than the one he made on 8th December?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall certainly do so when the legislation is introduced into the House next year.

Mr. Grimond: When the Chancellor is considering the matter, will he bear in mind that it would be anomalous if gains on gilt-edged stock were taxable but gains on gambling were not?

Mr. Callaghan: I follow the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. By definition, a capital gain arises when an asset is disposed of. A football pool winning does not require the disposal of an asset.

Mr. Kershaw: In connection with Question No. 62, will the Chancellor realise the dilemma in which he is placing owner-occupiers of land, who are faced with the problem of whether they should value their holdings today as against a possible sale in the long-term future? The position is difficult both technically and financially. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as he possibly can?

Mr. Callaghan: A number of difficulties are being made which do not exist. The proposal for a capital gains tax was clearly included in the manifesto on which we fought the election. Everybody has known ever since the manifesto was published that there would be a capital gains tax. I have tried to meet the convenience mostly of hon. Members


opposite by making a lengthy statement about the general structure of the tax and I do not think that it would be in the public interest to go further at present.

Mr. Maudling: Reverting to the question of the gilt-edged market, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering representations. Surely, he does not need any representations from anybody to realise the state of the gilt-edged market. Cannot he do something to clear up this important and urgent point?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot add to the answer which I have already given.

Mr. Woodnutt: Question No. 44, which the Chancellor has also answered, is rather wider. In view of the fact that we are all quite clear that the purchasing value of the £ will drop during the term of office of the present Government, will he give an assurance that at least he will make provision to allow for this in his capital gains tax? I am not asking him to give exact details, but will he give an assurance that he will make allowance for this?

Mr. Callaghan: I seem to remember that in the last thirteen years, when I sat on the benches opposite, substantial capital gains were coupled with a dramatic fall in the value of the £.

Mr. Box: Does the Chancellor appreciate the intolerable burden that these uncertainties are placing upon trustees who have the responsibility for acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries of various trusts? Will he bear this very much in mind when considering whether he cannot bring forward a statement to remove these uncertainties on the gilt-edged position?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that there are uncertainties in this field—[Interruption.]—which are not inherent in a change of this nature in the taxation system in order to make our tax system more fair. Naturally, in a transitional period, there is bound to be a certain amount of uncertainty, but at least I hope now to introduce a system with the support of the House that will ensure that capital gains are taxed just as much as earnings of a wage earner.

Mr. Albu: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is no more uncertainty than exists from year to year

between one Budget and the next if Chancellors of the Exchequer introduce changes in taxation? May I ask my right hon. Friend to do nothing to weaken the effect of this vary much overdue capital gains tax?

Mr. Callaghan: indicated assent.

Trade and Payments Statistics

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what extent he is satisfied with the variety, scope and frequency of the present routine trade and payments statistics; and what steps he proposes to take to improve them.
(2) What are the statistical limits of error in the major components of the United Kingdom's trade and payments statistics, and in the resulting figure of net deficit or surplus on the overall balance of payments.

Mr. MacDermot: As regards the balance of payments, the series of quarterly and annual figures is under continuous review and further improvements will be made, notably in the measurement of certain payments and receipts for services in the invisibles account and of international trade credit, as more information becomes available. The "balancing item" represents the net total of errors and omissions throughout the accounts, but it is not feasible to say precisely to what extent the various components of the accounts have contributed to this item.
The monthly trade figures are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Lloyd: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether in future the statistical limits of error will always be prominently attached to the official trade and payments figures to which they refer so that the public will not be misled by attributing to them a degree of accuracy which they do not and simply cannot hold?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not possible, as I have said, to apportion the balancing items between the particular components.

Mr. Maudling: It is not entirely a matter of balancing items. Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman give us some


computation of the statistical limits of error? For example, take 1960–61; that was a year in which the final balance that year differed from the original estimate—I believe by more than £100 million.

Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. Member should know. I think that in general the assessment of the reliability of the various components of the balance of payments accounts is given on pages 37–39 of the United Kingdom Balance of Payments 1964, which is published by the Stationery Office, but it would be unrealistic to try to assess the range of error in quantitative terms for various components.

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that during the year there has been an increase of something like £300 million in aid grants and credit guarantees, which have put a totally different complexion on the case the Government are making?

Mr. MacDermot: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is an entirely different question.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with this side of the House—it is generally agreed—that better statistics are an advantage? In this connection would right hon. Gentlemen opposite cease making speeches in which they muddle capital investment overseas with our trading balance, which is a totally different thing, because this would seem to be seeking to deceive the public in this country but particularly people overseas who do not realise that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are making political points and not fair points?

Government Departments (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to moving some adjuncts of Government Departments to Northern Ireland.

Mr. MacDermot: In selecting locations for Government establishments which are being moved we shall, as far as practicable, give special consideration to the claims of areas, including Northern Ireland, which need additional employment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman have consultations with the Minister of Technology and other appropriate Ministers with a view to seeing whether he can put more research establishments in Northern Ireland on the lines of the successful linen research department already there?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, I will certainly bring that suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is, perhaps, establishments of that kind which it might be possible to locate in Northern Ireland.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the suggestions already made to the Treasury by the Ulster Members on this matter?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, certainly. Those representations have already been drawn to my attention.

Import Surcharge

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 15 per cent. import surcharge applies to imported nursery stock; and what proposals he has for alleviating the hardship caused to nurserymen and seedsmen.

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, but I do not expect this to cause any serious hardship to nurserymen and seedsmen.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that that answer will be received with incredulity by those who are involved? Quite plainly, the hon. and learned Gentleman has grown roses in anger in his life or he would never make a reply like that. But does he realise what he is taxing by this surcharge the raw material by which these people make their living, and will he apply himself accordingly?

Mr. MacDermot: I thought that rose growers grew their roses in love and not in anger. However, this charge represents less than 1d. on rose plants selling at more than 3s.

Scottish Economy

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the likely effect of the Government's recent economic measures, in


particular the tax increases and Bank Rate measures, on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Callaghan: We cannot have a healthy economy in any part of the United Kingdom unless we first strike a balance between our overseas payments and receipts. That is the purpose of the Government's recent measures. In working them out, particular attention is being paid to fostering the development of areas like Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: While appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he will agree that Scotland has never before had to suffer at any one time such a wide range of penal monetary and fiscal measures, and that Bank Rate alone between now and May will mean an extra £180,000? Is he further aware that prominent members of the present Government have called from time to time in past years for the exemption of Scotland from this kind of proposal? What steps are they going to take to implement those promises?

Mr. Callaghan: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's premise is quite wrong on this occasion Scotland and other development areas are being singled out to ensure that they do not suffer from the effects of the Government's measures.

Hon. Members: How?

WHITBY RAILWAY LINES (CLOSURE)

Sir A. Spearman: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the subject of Government action with regard to closure of the Whitby railway lines; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have had representations from the Whitby Urban and Rural District Councils, three local associations, and four individuals, asking me to stop or postpone the closure of these services. The position as set out in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport's statement on 4th November has been explained to them.

Sir A. Spearman: May I remind the Prime Minister that on 15th September he wrote to the Chairman of the Scarborough and Whitby Labour Party a

personal letter, which was much publicised during the election, and in which he said,
I confirm that obviously a major decision such as the proposed Scarborough-MaltonWhitby closures would he covered by the statement in the Labour Party Manifesto that the new regional authorities will"—

Hon. Members: Order. Reading.

Sir A. Spearman: Yes, I am reading the Prime Minister's letter.

Mr. Speaker: Verbatim quotation of that kind is out of order on a Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will summarise its effect.

Sir A. Spearman: The Prime Minister wrote a personal letter on 15th September stating that these railway closures would be halted pending the new regional authority's report. My constituents expect him to fulfil that pledge.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course, the position was that when this Government took over the decision had by that time been taken by the then Minister. Under the terms of the 1962 Act we could not halt the closure which had already been decided. I do feel that an explanation is called for to those concerned, and I think the hon. Gentleman should now inform Scarborough and Whitby and all stations between that he voted for the 1962 Act.

Sir A. Spearman: The Prime Minister must have known that when he made that pledge.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a debate on the cost of living the hon. Member expressed himself on 20th July—it can be found in HANSARD of that date in column 105—as totally opposed to public subsidies to bolster up private enterprise and yet now he is protesting about these closures even though he knows that to keep the lines open they will need to be bolstered up by what is in effect a subsidy?

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the constitutional position of Southern Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: The constitutional position of Southern Rhodesia was set out by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary in a written reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 17th November.

Mr. Wall: Would the Prime Minister confirm that the British Government recognise and will adhere to the convention by which they do not legislate for Rhodesia except at the request of the Rhodesian Government?

The Prime Minister: I think the whole question of the convention and the security issues were very excellently expressed in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué signed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We fully adhere to it.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent protest given to the High Commissioner by the African nationals in regard to the recruitment of both Africans and German recruits into the Rhodesian Air Force, in the light of the recent dismissal of the commander-in-chief? Would my right hon. Friend care to make a statement?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that protest, but I do not think there is anything I could say helpfully about that particular protest at this stage. I am, however, on the general question on which I have previously reported to the House, in further communication with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, and, indeed, sent him a message today.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the Prime Minister aware that what is necessary in Rhodesia is not only that Europeans should be prepared to act properly according to a constitution but that the African nationalist extremists should also be so prepared? I asked his right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary about this recently. Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is time the Government made some noises about the Africans and what they should do if they are to show that they are worthy of fighting constitutionally rather than resorting to violence and intimidation?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what noises the hon. Gentleman wants

to hear. We have reiterated the statement made by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in their communiqué, and by this we stand.
With regard to the possible consequences of an illegal declaration of independence, we made a full and frank statement, which was discussed by a number of hon. Members during the debate on the Address.

GENERAL ELECTION (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the report which he has now received from the Minister of Labour into the political motivation of strikes at election times, together with minutes of the evidence taken.

Sir D. Glover: asked the Prime Minister if he will now take steps to establish permanent machinery for the investigation of political motivation behind any future industrial dispute.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already informed the House of the results of my right hon. Friend's examination. No evidence was taken outside his Department and no other kind of permanent machinery is required.

Mr. Ridley: Would not the Prime Minister agree that this House is a very fair place? If he were prepared to withdraw the allegation that he made instead of trying to justify it, this question could now be dropped.

The Prime Minister: If I thought that there was anything to withdraw I would, but I have explained several times to the House my reasons for thinking there was something suspicious going on and calling for an inquiry. I was not wrong in saying that there was something suspicious going on. What no one could foresee, and what shocked the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) in a recent Question, was that within 24 hours we would get very clearly what was the reason for this dispute in a statement which I do not think anyone would have expected he would be likely to hear, and that is now the explanation.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the slow progress in this matter


suggests a lack of dynamism? Will he take energetic action to allay public suspicion that many strikes are due to conscious and purposive Socialist planning?

ADEN OPERATIONS (CAMPAIGN MEDAL)

Mr. Pounder: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the award of a campaign medal for the military personnel involved in the Aden operations.

The Prime Minister: The award of a General Service Medal in recognition of certain specified operational service is under consideration.

Mr. Pounder: Does the Prime Minister realise that a slight variation in the ribbon design of the ordinary General Service Medal has been agreed for the Borneo and Aden operations? However, the medal to go with the ribbon has not yet been decided. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that it will not be the ordinary General Service Medal, but will be appropriate to these two campaigns?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, this matter is under consideration and there are certain technical points which have to be discussed with Middle East Command.

VIETNAM

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to support any expansion of the war in South Vietnam into North Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the situation in South Vietnam was explained in the Foreign Affairs debate last week. The assurance asked for by my hon. Friend relates to an entirely hypothetical situation.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 5th March of this year he urged the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, to make it clear that he was advising President Johnson against those who were proposing an invasion of North Vietnam as a way of aiding the situation in South Vietnam, and on 30th June of this year

he again addressed the present Leader of the Opposition and asked him to make it quite clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting from the Question—that we would not support any extension of the war into North Vietnam? Will he please make it clear that the Government's position is still that stated by him in those Questions?

The Prime Minister: I think that those were very wise words, but the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking from this Box, said that he had not been asked to agree to extend the war to North Vietnam, and that is my position today.

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Dr. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister what Departments are to be responsible for the advancement of technology in the building industry; and what is the extent of their separate responsibilities.

The Prime Minister: The primary responsibility for the building industry rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. He acts in close consultation with the other Ministers concerned, including the Minister of Technology who has the task of promoting industrial advance in industry generally and will be responsible for the Building Research Station.

Dr. Bennett: Does not there seem to be a proliferation of Ministries for Technology and Science which overlap each other in this, and are not there a large number of other Departments concerned in this? Does not the Prime Minister feel that the extra Ministries have not simplified, but have made things very complicated?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a proliferation, I can only tell him that this is a continuation of the system we inherited, though I think that this is justified because on that occasion the Minister for Education and Science was responsible for the Building Research Station. Those duties have now been taken over by the Minister of Technology. We went very carefully into the question of whether this particular research station should be transferred to the Department which is responsible for the industry concerned,


namely, the Ministry of Works, but we decided to adhere to the system which had previously been followed, that it should be the responsibility of the technological Ministry and not of the production department.

Sir C. Osborne: Whichever Department looks into this matter, will the Prime Minister be good enough to have an investigation into the cause of the new house price index rising over the last eight years from 96 to 144? What is the cause of this, and what can be done to help it?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone who studies this will agree that one of the main items in this is the rising price of land. This is not a problem which can be solved by technology, but only by legislation. Rising costs are a matter of concern to everyone, and this is a matter which I know my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is discussing with both sides of industry, not only nationally, but on his tour of particular regions.

UNITED STATES (SHIPPING DIFFERENCES)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the President of the United States of America on matters relating to shipping which were in controversy; and whether unanimity resulted.

The Prime Minister: As regards the Washington talks, it would not be right for me to go beyond the scope of the joint communiqué but we hope that the progress achieved through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development last week in resolving differences with the United States authorities on shipping policy will be maintained.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask, because it really was not quite clear from the communiqué, whether it was the Prime Minister's conversation with President Johnson which produced the communiqué, or whether it arose out of ordinary trade and commercial considerations and decisions? Would I be right in assuming that the decisions had been taken before he had his conversation, if he had one, with President Johnson?

The Prime Minister: It is not usual to go into detail in talks with the President of the United States and similar talks, but I think I can say that our position in this matter is exactly the same as that of the previous Government with regard to shipping, and I think that the position of the Government is fully understood in the United States. I am not claiming that any talks in Washington this month have led to the improved situation at O.E.C.D., though I join the hon. Lady in hoping that that progress will be maintained.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are some outstanding bilateral problems relating to shipping which call for some further consideration? Although there has been some easement of some of the problems which exist, would not it be a wise move if one of his right hon. Friends, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister for Economic Affairs, took the opportunity of having discussions to remove some of the difficulties of a bilateral character which exists?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that there are some big outstanding questions, and I was not trying to suggest that what happened at O.E.C.D. was more than a step in the right direction, but I am satisfied that the United States Government know of our position on this, and if anything further is needed to bring the problem to their attention we shall not hesitate to take whatever steps are necessary.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Higgins: asked the Prime Minister if her Maestys' Government will recognise the competence of the European Commission on Human Rights to receive petitions within the terms of Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and if it will declare, pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, that it recognises as compulsory, ipso facto and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights on all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are at present looking into the whole matter.

ISRAEL (SUPPLY OF AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Burden: asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to permit the supply of Buccaneer aircraft to Israel.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have not been asked to supply Israel with Buccaneers.

Mr. Burden: Is it not generally accepted that the Israeli Government are interested in purchasing these aircraft? In view of the fact that they would certainly not use them for internal security, will he give consideration to any approaches that they may make on this question or on other British arms?

The Prime Minister: If this question, so far hypothetical, became a reality, it would raise some difficult issues. I am sure that the House will be aware of our desire to avoid an arms race in the Middle East. Although we feel that the arms balance in the Middle East has been severely affected by the shipments made by other countries, we do not want to stimulate a fresh round of shipments by any action of this kind.

Mr. Burden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Israel is a small, isolated country, and that her intentions are not aggressive? Would it not be in the interest of peace in general to ensure that such countries have the arms with which to protect themselves? Would not it be in sympathy with the general attitude of this country to countries of that type, namely, to assist them in preserving their independence?

The Prime Minister: The whole House will probably be as concerned as the hon. Member is to ensure that everything necessary is done to preserve the independence of Israel and that we should do everything in our power—which is not easy—to damp down the causes of tension in that area. As for arms, the solution must lie—I do not pretend it is easy—in getting international agreement to stop competitive shipments of arms to Middle Eastern countries and to work as quickly as possible to secure a nonnuclear zone in that area to prevent what is already a dangerous arms situation becoming worse by becoming nuclear.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS

3.33 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto.
In recent years there has been growing disquiet about the possible effects on the balance of nature, wild life, and, perhaps, human beings themselves, of the increase in volume of toxic chemicals which are used on the land. Some of these chemicals are used to destroy the insects which reduce crop yields, and these are the chemicals with which the Bill is concerned—more especially the organo-chlorine pesticides which are most effective in their destruction of harmful insects, but also leave behind the most persistent residues.
No one questions the value of much of this modern development, but, just as in the case of road traffic we have had to institute not only a Highway Code, but also increasing restrictions and limitations to deal with the problem of increasing traffic, so, with the problem of chemicals on the land, we are learning all the time, and it is becoming necessary to improve the safety regulations and to make them more generally applicable, instead of merely to the agricultural workers who are protected by certain precautions in this respect at present.
A great deal has been done already, but we must not develop a sense of false security about the situation. There are three things which seem to me to be particularly necessary. First, we must realise what the problem is and the effect it is having on wild life in this country. In spite of the ban which has been imposed, in part, on the more drastic of these toxic pesticides—aldrin, dieldrin, eldrin and heptachlor—bodies and eggs of birds are coming in for examination for toxic residues in the same number as before. The number of birds of prey increased to 82 in the past year, as compared with 57 the year before.
The use of dieldrin in sheep dip has caused an alarming decline in the fertility of golden eagles in Western Scotland, and more than one of these birds of prey are now threatened with complete extinction. Far from the problem diminishing from what is being done, it


is becoming more widespread. An increasing number of observers are becoming concerned about the build-up of very heavy contamination in marine species of all kinds. In addition, not only are harmful insects destroyed, but bees, in their hundreds of thousands, are often wiped out by aerial crop spraying.
I have no figures concerning the possible effects on human beings in this country, but authorities in the United States have estimated that the average American citizen takes in about 50 mgs. of D.D.T. per year, mainly through the imbibing of food, and that he has an average body content of 150 mgs. of D.D.T. From time to time a number of cases have been reported to me of unexplained sickness in this country. Relatives and friends of these patients have been convinced that some crop sprays of this kind caused the minor sickness, which could not otherwise be accounted for.
The second thing we need to do is to educate the users of toxic chemicals. It is too often assumed that everybody using these insecticides on the land is highly trained, skilled and knowledgeable about them. This is not so. A great many of these chemicals are used by enthusiastic but not very knowledgeable amateur gardeners in all kinds of sprays in their garden, and they frequently give an extra spray for luck without thinking of the possible consequences on their pets, their neighbours, and possibly even themselves.
It is important that we should realise what is happening. I have been very disturbed to learn that a number of farmers have stockpiled several years' supply of sheep dip containing dieldrin in order to beat the ban on that chemical when it comes into force, and that in some cases they have been encouraged by distributors to do this. Clearly, there is a great deal of educational work to be done to make the users realise their responsibilities.
One way in which we can improve the position is by a better labelling of

the containers of these toxic chemicals. It must be made possible for nontechnical users to see quite clearly what are the ingredients in the cartons, bottles, or tins. The voluntary scheme which was introduced by the manufacturers is very good as far as it goes, but I am not alone in believing that the time is long overdue for the scheme to be made mandatory and applicable to everybody who produces these chemicals.
It is also important that there should be a clear warning of toxicity on the labels of these containers, in the form of a distinctive mark or colour, so that it is possible to see at a glance whether or not the chemical has dangerous properties. It is important to realise that as the more deadly chemicals are banned, there is the danger that those which might be equally harmful, although rather longer term in their effect, may be used in increasing quantities by people who believe them to be safe. There is some evidence to show that this is happening with B.H.C. and D.D.T. These are universally used in shops and homes, as well as on farms and for gardens, with great liberality and with very little consideration on the part of those who use them.
I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in my very modest Bill, which is confined to the labelling of insecticides, and which, I think, will make a small but useful contribution to the solution of what is now a very great and serious problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Butler, Miss Quennell, Mr. William Yates, Sir Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Hazell, and Mr. Malcolm MacMillan.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS

Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day — CEREALS MARKETING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill, clearly stated right at the start, in Clause 1, is to improve the marketing of home-grown cereals. I hope that there will be unanimous support for a Bill with such an objective. Certainly, there will be the strongest wish on this side of the House to advance on this very desirable development. The Labour Party has always had a positive approach to agricultural marketing. We have consistently advocated the need for improved marketing arrangements. Our broad aim has been to proceed step by step towards orderly marketing. We now intend to carry on and complete, in the changing circumstances of today, the practical steps to achieve our main objectives, which are the introduction of modernised and effective marketing for farm products.
Our farmers have made great strides in increasing the efficiency of production. They have taken full advantage of scientific and technical progress. But we have not seen the same advances in the field of marketing. This is not the farmers' fault. There are many more interests involved, and improvements depend largely on the good will and co-operation of all concerned. It is here that the Government have a direct responsibility to help in seeing that the marketing machinery meets the needs of both producers and consumers.
The philosophy of hon. Members opposite has been different. They have maintained that marketing is a job for the industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) has made that perfectly clear on a number of occasions both in this House and outside it. The right hon. Gentleman was, indeed, responsible for the agreement with the different interests, producers and traders, on the programme to which the Bill before the House gives effect. I am happy, therefore

to congratulate him, even though his conversion is somewhat belated.
The need to improve the marketing of cereals, and to bring the various interests together for that purpose, is of very long standing. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends spent too much time during their period of office in prosecuting other causes. They neglected marketing, despite admonition from myself and from my hon. and right hon. Friends.
I should like now to deal with one aspect of this matter, on which it appears that there is some confusion. It is the relationship between the arrangements to be brought into force by this Bill and the Labour Party's proposals for commodity commissions. The main functions of a commodity commission would be to phase and integrate imports with home production. That is not the purpose of the Bill, or of the Authority it is intended to establish. It is solely concerned with home-grown cereals.
Equally, as the Bill demonstrates, we are not wedded to the idea of producer marketing boards as the sole panacea for the problem of domestic marketing arrangements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have support. Here again, a commodity-by-commodity approach is the only realistic way. In respect of cereals, the farmers' unions recognise—and we, too, recognise—that it is essential to proceed on a joint basis, and with the direct participation of all the interests concerned, to secure the comprehensive improvements in marketing that are needed.
It was for this reason that I welcomed the fact that the various interests concerned—whose views tended to differ so widely in the past—were able to come together and reach the agreement which has made the Bill possible.
It follows that hon. Members on this side of the House will warmly support the advance in marketing that will be made by the acceptance of the Bill. The agreement which was reached in September with the farm and trade interests, constituted a very useful step forward. That is why we are seeking, by the Bill, to take immediate action to bring the plan into effect. I hope that the Opposition will share this view.
I have already congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford on his part in this effort. I am sure that, like myself, he and his hon. Friends will be anxious to get the Bill on to the Statute Book in good time for the new arrangements to be ready for the 1965 harvest.
I will describe briefly the objectives of the Bill. I shall not go into it in great detail, but if there are any points of detail on which hon. Members want information, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to supply them when he replies to the debate. Moreover, we shall have the Committee stage, when hon. Members will be able to undertake a more detailed scrutiny of each Clause.
The main weakness in the existing system for marketing the corn grown in this country is the uncertainty that faces the farmer about what the market will pay him for his grain at different times in the season. Often he is short of cash and a weak seller. All too often he has to sell with little knowledge of the state of the market and too little means of spreading his sales between one harvest and the next. If he sells in the rush after a harvest, he sends the prices down, to the detriment of himself and his neighbours.
As the House knows, the standard price of wheat is converted into a rising scale of seasonal prices over five accounting periods to encourage orderly marketing. There is also the Barley Incentive Scheme, under which the deficiency payments to barley growers are adjusted under a system of premiums and deductions, to encourage growers to spread their marketings.
The effect of these arrangements is to encourage growers to hold their wheat and barley off the market for varying periods of time, but much more remains to be done if they are to be able to plan their sales with proper knowledge of the market prospects and full assurance that their grain will find a buyer.
Forward contracts meet this need because they provide specific dates of delivery, and thereby enable it to be known at what times supplies will be coming on to the market. Under a system of forward contracts, the farmer can

sell his grain, or part of his grain, forward, either at a price fixed at the time of contract, or at the price prevailing when the contract date arrives. So far, forward contracts have never been satisfactorily developed in this country for home grown cereals. The Bill provides for a system of bonuses to give growers an incentive to enter into forward contracts. I believe that this will do much to remove some of the present difficulties.
Not all farmers can afford to wait two or three months or more before they get their money. The amount of working capital tied up in farming today is quite formidable. For the grower who needs ready cash and cannot afford to hold his crop, bonus payments for forward contracts would be of little benefit in themselves. For this reason, the Bill provides not only for bonuses for forward contracts, but will make possible arrangements for loans to growers who enter into forward contracts. The farmer will, therefore, not only be able to sell forward, but should be able to get a loan to tide him over when he has signed a contract, until the grain is delivered. These provisions are not, of course, intended to replace the normal sources of credit which are already available to cereals growers, but they should serve as a useful supplementary source.
The first objective of the Bill is, therefore, to encourage and facilitate forward contracting, as a means of securing better phasing of supplies coming on to the market throughout the season. There is provision also for bonus payments for deliveries of cereals at certain periods of the year, as under the Barley Incentive Scheme to which I referred earlier, even though the deliveries are not based on forward contracts.
So much for the first objective. Before I come to the second, let me deal with the machinery to achieve the objectives. Quite simply, it will be the setting up of a Home-Grown Cereals Authority for the general purpose of improving marketing of home-grown cereals. The first duty of the Authority will be to prepare the scheme of bonus payments for forward contracts for wheat and barley to which I have referred.
The composition of the Authority is set out in Clause 1, and the House will see that it is made up of three elements under an independent chairman: first, a minimum


of three and a maximum of five independent members, including the chairman and deputy-chairman, who will represent the general national interest and the interest of the consumer; secondly, nine members representing the producers including those producers who feed grain to their livestock; thirdly, it will include nine representatives of the trade.
To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that, although I have referred to representatives, there is no question of bodies representing these interests having the right of nomination to the Authority. I think that hon. Members will agree that this is right. The choice in all cases will he made by the agricultural Ministers after consultation with the representative organisations.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: Could I ask one question? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned wheat and barley. Could he explain why it is that oats, which are the main crop in Scotland, have been excluded?

Mr. Peart: They will not be excluded. I have merely referred to producers who teed grain to their livestock. I am sure that after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland that point will be borne in mind. They will not be excluded. The Authority will comprise certain members, but we would not allow the right of nomination as such. We shall make the appointments. I think that this is right. We shall have persons who are capable of taking informed decisions from their knowledge of the working of the marketing process from farm to user, and I hope the body as a whole will look at the problem from the national point of view.
Now for the second main objective to be achieved by this body. This is the promotion of better market intelligence, research and demonstration, and improvements in trade procedures. Our farmers have been handicapped by not having adequate market intelligence. When they are trying to market their grain to the best advantage over the season, they need prompt and accurate intelligence of the state of the markets and the prospects ahead.
The Bill authorises the Authority to undertake this function and, with the firmer information provided by the

development of forward contracting, it should be able to provide the best possible market intelligence for the producers and the trade.

Sir Richard Glyn: I am following the Minister's remarks with great interest. Will this market intelligence, which is of the greatest importance, include information about prospective imports? This, I think, affects the market to a very great degree. We have just seen the Common Market fix a price of £38 a ton for soft wheat on the farm. Of course, they have large financial resources for dumping surpluses at knockout prices, and this will affect the price in Britain.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that this Authority is concerned purely with home-grown cereals. I realise that there will be problems of imports, but the Authority itself is concerned purely with the domestic position. Obviously, external factors will affect the situation, but this is solely a national body.
The Authority will also be able to take over the admirable work of the unofficial working party, which has met under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Norman, and to carry on with the system of guide prices.
The other weakness of the farmer has been his inability to provide the processor with the same uniform quality and quantity as a buyer gets with a shipload arriving at the ports. The new Authority is, therefore, being empowered under this Bill to set on foot research and demonstration on the storing and testing of home-grown grain, and to look into the possibilities of bulk handling and improved methods of collection and distribution. It is an important part of our policy that the benefits of scientific and technological progress should be made more widely available in the field of marketing, as they have been in the field of production.
The new Authority then will have these two important functions to help to put the home farmer on more level terms with the importer. The Authority will provide the bonuses to encourage him to place forward contracts, and will be able to make arrangements to enable him to obtain a loan on the strength of the contract he has signed.
At the same time, they will provide him with better market intelligence, so that he and the trade can plan to the best advantage. They will also be carrying forward a programme of research and demonstration to promote, if possible, bulk handling and storage of home-grown grain, and encourage other improvements in the physical collection, distribution and condition of our home-grown supplies.
These powers are conferred by Part I of the Bill. But the Bill goes further than this. It allows for the possibility that, even with these important improvements, a situation might be reached where, although the price of imported grain was held by the minimum import price, the price of home-grown corn might have dropped appreciably below what the price should be at the farm on the normal differential between the farm and the port price. If such a situation arises, it will be open to the Authority to recommend to the agricultural Ministers that further steps should be taken, and the Authority, which is composed of both producers and traders, as well as independent members, will not recommend that such steps be taken, unless the difficulties seem them to be serious and likely to persist.
If, however, they were convinced that this was so, they could approach the agricultural Ministers, and if we were equally convinced then we could introduce an Order; and, subject to parliamentary approval, the Authority would have power to take further steps to deal with the situation.
What are these further steps? Under the standing powers in Part I of the Bill, the Authority would merely be encouraging forward contracts between a seller and a purchaser, or deliveries at particular periods of the year. Under Part II of the Bill, subject to approval of the Order by Parliament, the Authority—if prices on the home market had been below a prescribed level for a stated period—could buy the grain itself. These could be either straight purchases in support of the market, or forward contracts if the Authority thought that an inadequate number of purchasers had been willing to contract forward.
As I have said, the Authority would be able to exercise these powers only when the market price had been below a prescribed level for a stated period and it

would have to stop buying when the market price had risen above that level. Under the Bill, the prescribed level would, in effect, be the target indicator price, which is—subject to quality differentials—the ex-farm equivalent of the appropriate minimum import price.
In addition to the provision that it could buy only when the market price was below the target indicator price, the Authority would also be subject to the strict requirement that it should dispose of the grain within a month, at latest, of the end of the cereal year in which the contract was made.
This will ensure that each season's crop is dealt with within that season, and that there is no carry-over of stocks to the following year. While the Authority's activities, on both the non-trading and trading sides, will be designed to eliminate marketing inefficiencies, which might unreasonably depress the average price over the season as a whole, the price obtainable in any season will depend on the size of the crop in that season.
If this were in excess of the standard quantity, the effect of the standard quantity and target indicator price mechanisms would continue to be reflected in growers' returns. It may be that these further trading powers will not be necessary, but the Government accept the view of the parties to the agreement that these powers ought to be held in reserve.
I do not propose to go at all closely into the mechanics of the Authority's financial operations, which are dealt with in Part III of the Bill, but perhaps I might highlight one or two of the features.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: Will the Authority step in as soon as the price falls below the prescribed level? The right hon. Gentleman said earlier "when it fell substantially below the prescribed level". Will the Authority jump in when it is 10s. a ton, and so on?

Mr. Peart: That will be for the Authority to decide. It will take the decision and the initiatives, and the Ministers will be informed.
I am passing on quickly to the financial operations of the Authority. The Authority will need revenue to cover


its administrative costs, to pay for the collection and publication of market intelligence, and to pay for research and demonstration work. It will need money to pay the bonuses to those who contract forward, or sell at particular periods of the year. It may also be involved in direct expenditure on loans, or by way of guarantees on loans. The greater part of the Authority's revenue will be drawn from the producers, either by deduction from the deficiency payments, or, if the case should arise, by direct collection.
The Bill will, however, authorise me to make an Exchequer contribution towards the Authority's administrative or other expenditure on its non-trading activities, excluding actual disbursement by way of bonuses, loans or guarantees. This contribution will be provided for in the annual parliamentary Vote.
The Authority's expenditure as a whole will be subject to ministerial scrutiny each year, when its annual budget is presented, and the amount of the revenue to be raised by the Authority by levies on growers will be determined by Ministers in the light of this. The annual Orders prescribing the levies would be laid before Parliament and would be subject to negative Resolution procedure.
Borrowing powers will be conferred on the Authority, and, if, of course, it came to direct trading under Part II of the Bill, that would need more money, which would be secured by borrowing. The limits of borrowing for the purposes of the Authority's trading functions could be defined by Order, which would be subject to the control of Parliament.
To sum up, therefore, what we are seeking to do under the Bill is to take immediate action to improve the marketing of home-grown cereals throughout the United Kingdom by setting up an Authority which would direct all its activities towards the achievement of this objective. It will provide financial incentives to growers to encourage a better phasing of supplies from farm to market throughout the season. It will be able to develop a comprehensive and up-to-date marketing intelligence service. It will also be able to undertake or encourage technical work into such problems as the storage and physical handling of home-grown cereals. I am sure that the value of these

technical activities will become increasingly apparent as time goes on. In case of need, there is the provision in Part II for the use of the reserve trading powers.
The Bill implements in full a plan which has been agreed between the farming and trade interests. The text of this, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, was published by my Department on 22nd September, and copies have been placed in the Library. I believe that this is a workmanlike Measure, and one which, I hope, will commend itself to both sides of the House.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Soames: I must congratulate the Minister on his abilities as a midwife in bringing in the Bill, which, as he generously said, was entirely the work of the previous Government which brought about between the industry and the trade the necessary agreements which enable the Bill to be brought before the House, and to get, I think, a general and wide measure of agreement from both sides of the House about what is contained in it.
I pay tribute to the industry and the trade for the work they did to bring about the agreement. It was not easy. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, this is something which the agricultural industry would have liked to see some years back, but it has not been possible till this year, for reasons which I shall come to soon, to bring about agreement between the trade and the industry.
I should like particularly to single out the statesmanlike approach of the trade to these matters. Do not let us forget that the Bill ensures that grain will be sold at the maximum price possible consonant with the size of the crop, which at first blush would not look to be in the direct interests of the trade itself. It has shown a high degree of statesmanship in agreeing to these arrangements.
I now want to say a word about the background which the Opposition consider made the Bill both desirable and necessary. When the support system as we know it today was first introduced, food was short and prices were high, and the more food was produced at home, the lower were the prices and the better was the system then thought to be working. But over a comparatively short period of years beginning in the late 'fifties, because of the rapid expansion


of home production, coupled with plenty leading on to surpluses in overseas countries, a different situation was created. This put a growing strain on the cost of our support system, and it called for a considerable change of emphasis if we were to continue with our system while containing the Exchequer bill within reasonable limits.
The nation could, of course, carry the deficiency payment cost flowing from the difference between the guaranteed price to our farmers on the one hand and the world economic price of grain on the other hand. But when our market became the receptacle for dumped grain at totally uneconomic prices, this difference became too large and the bill totally unacceptable.
There have been wide variations in prices. If one looks at the trend of the guaranteed price for cereals, which has been consistently downward over the last ten years, this shows the very considerable measure of increased efficiency which our cereal growers have brought about. But at the same time as the guaranteed price was moving down from 29s. to less than 27s. per cwt. we had on the market here for cereals brought in from overseas very considerable variations in average market prices.
It was in 1961–62 that there was a general surplus of barley throughout the world and barley was sent to this country for as little as £14 a ton. As a result of the increased production of our own crop, on the one hand, and the variations in the price of imported grain, on the other, we had, over a period of about five years, variations in the cost of the deficiency payment, which ranged between £50 million and £80 million. The House realised that it was necessary to tackle this problem.
What changes of emphasis were required? There were three aspects. First, there was some control over imports, reflected in the agreements made with overseas countries early this year. Secondly, there was the shift of emphasis at home from increased production at any price to increased productivity. That is reflected in the new financial arrangements for the guarantees for grain brought in by the last price review, including the standard quantities. Thirdly, there were better marketing arrangements to be made so that the

home grower could get the highest possible return from the market, consonant with the size of the crop.
It is the third of these aspects that the Bill is designed to achieve. Let there be no mistake about it. The agreement the Bill implements is deliberately designed to sustain the market price for home-grown grain so that our farmers will get as high a proportion as can be of the return from the market, leaving the Exchequer to meet as small a difference as possible. I hope that I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on that. It is another way of saying that our purpose is to see that as high a proportion as possible of the guaranteed price is met by the consumer and the lowest possible proportion by the taxpayer.
It may be a strange paradox, but I believe this to be good business for the consumer. I will explain why. It might appear to be deliberately designed to force the price up to the consumer but, on the contrary, the consumer benefits enormously from our system of support, and if we were to run into a time when the Exchequer bill was quite out of control we would be forced to move to another system—and there is no other system that can provide food so cheaply. Therefore, to preserve the advantages of our present system, we cannot afford to go into the bargain basement.
It is this system which is now protected by the three measures I have spoken about—the agreements with overseas countries, the new arrangements for deficiency payments on home grown grain, and this Bill. I believe that between January, when we made the first agreement with overseas suppliers and September, when we used the good will of the Ministry to bring about agreement between the trade and the agriculture industry, we achieved a package deal for cereals which modernises our support system, which is flexible and which will enable us to continue to see that our farmers get a fair return for their cereals while, at the same time, protecting the Exchequer from a runaway bill. There are three aspects, but it is one package. This was achieved this year.
I have a few points to make and questions to ask on the Bill. The first question


concerns the composition of the Authority, dealt with by Clause 1. Subsection (2,b) states that there are to be nine representatives of the trade and of agriculture. I notice, however, that these nine are to be either growers of cereals or
… capable of representing the intersts of farmers who use home-grown cereals for feeding livestock kept by them.
The inference there, I think, is that the nine representing the interests of agriculture must either be cereal growers or cereal growers who are also users of cereals. Is it possible, under subsection (2,b), to have on the Authority those representing the interests purely of the farmer consumer of cereals disregarding, where he is concerned, the grower? Or must every member of the Authority be himself representative of the interests of the grower of cereals although he be also a user?
Clause 3(1) needs explanation. It says:
… any such scheme may relate … either to the whole of the United Kingdom or to any part of the United Kingdom so specified.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I have it in mind that this provision is designed in such a way as to enable a scheme to be made for oats in Scotland without having one in England.

Mr. Peart: indicated assent.

Mr. Soames: I wonder whether it is wise or necessary to use such a sledge hammer. It gives the Authority, as I see it, power to bring about different prices in different parts of the country. It could be done county by county, as now worded
I know that any schemes of this sort would have to come before the Minister and I imagine that such differential prices are not in his mind. Indeed, such a course would be a total departure from what we have done hitherto. However, I am concerned that to enable such a scheme to be introduced for Scotland it may be possible for the Authority through the Minister, or for the Minister through the Authority, to have different guaranteed prices for, say, East Anglia and the West Country. We have always turned our faces against this kind of thing in the past. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can say whether there is anything in this point and consider it between

now and Committee. We would certainly like to consider it.
Clause 8(6) and (7) deal with the orders that the Minister would bring before the House were the powers of the Authority to be extended into trading. The type of Order that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, according to the Bill, is that which comes into operation as soon as it is laid and continues in operation but which has to be debated in Parliament within 40 days or cease to be valid. But such an order could be introduced and begun to be operated without Parliament having considered it at all.
According to my recollection of the talks we had with the trade and the industry, the industry was of opinion that this power should be able to be brought in fairly rapidly if the need arose. On the other hand, as I see it, we all hope that the Bill will serve its purpose without trading powers having to be added to the other powers of the Authority. That, indeed, is why trading powers would have to be brought in by Order and why they are not simply enacted by this Measure at once. There is a good chance that the Bill will serve its purpose without having to extend the Authority's powers into trading.
As I envisage it, the right hon. Gentleman will wish to see the Bill operating for quite some time—perhaps for two or three years—before deciding, in consultation with the Authority, whether it is necessary to bring in the additional powers. I do not regard this as something to be rushed. Profound thought and mature consideration will be needed before a decision is taken as to whether it is necessary to extend the Authority's powers into trading. From the point of view of parliamentary scrutiny, we should certainly consider whether a straight affirmative Resolution would not be the right course. This would mean that only if Parliament agreed would it operate. I am open to argument on this, but on the face of it I regard it as something which we should consider.
As the Bill is worded, it could happen that towards the beginning of the new cereal year—say, at the end of July—an Order could be laid, the House would go into recess and not until the end of October or early November would it be discussed. Meanwhile, the Order would have been operating for three or four


months and after it had been working for that length of time, whatever Parliament might think about it, the Government would probably be too deeply committed to consider a change. I hope that the Minister will consider this.
I fail to understand why, in Clause 16, which deals with a scheme for raising levy otherwise than by deduction, it is necessary for the Authority to have power to inspect documents and the like and the books of those who deal in or process home-grown cereals. Under Clause 15, which deals with the recovery of the levy wholly or mainly by deduction, the Authority does not have power to inspect the books. I realise that where payment would be made by levy and not by deduction, the Authority has the power to look at the books. I know that in the case of deficiency payment the right hon. Gentleman has power at present to look at the books of processors of grain, but the Authority has not.
Those are the only detailed points which I wish to raise on the Bill. It is a Bill which should bring considerable benefit to the cereal grower and to the cereal trade as a whole and I am glad that we were able to bring about the agreement which was necessary to introduce it. I should, however, like to say a few words about the political aspects of the Bill and what the Minister has in mind to follow on after the Bill. I was rather amazed at the blandness with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill. As I see it, it is the outward and visible sign of the ruins in which Socialist agricultural policy now lies.
On what did the right hon. Gentleman rest his agricultural policy during the election? There was not much of it, I agree. There were three slender planks in the platform. One could search through the Labour Party election manifesto and see barely a reference to agriculture. Those three slender planks were: first, a marketing board, particularly for cereals; secondly, a commodity commission; and, thirdly, cheap credit for agriculture.
What is the situation now concerning cereals? Is there to be a marketing board? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether it is intended

to introduce one. This must be fresh in the Minister's mind; he must have thought of it. I will gladly give way to him if he will tell us. He inferred, I understood, that we must not be too dogmatic about this and that there are other ways than marketing boards that are better. Of course, there are other and better ways—for example, planning by consent as opposed to planning by compulsion. That was what we had achieved and that is what has made the Bill possible. My understanding is that there will not be a cereals marketing board. The introduction of the Bill shows that.
Next, what about a cereals commodity commission? Will it be superimposed on top of this organisation? I appreciate that the organisation is designed purely to help the marketing of home-grown cereals and not for cereals from abroad, but there should have been nothing to stop the right hon. Gentleman from introducing a Bill which did two things: first, to look after home-grown cereals and, secondly, if the Minister wanted, to bring in a commodity commission for dealing with imported cereals. It could have been done in the same Bill.
The Minister may say that he has not had time to put the one upon the other. Is he seriously considering introducing a cereals commodity commission? I doubt it very much. A week or two ago, he had a conference and discussions in London with representatives of overseas Governments who are party to the cereals agreement. Canada, the United States, the Argentine and Australia were among them. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, unlike his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not consider introducing a commodity commission and all that that means in terms of adaptations to the normal trade channels between this country and overseas countries without discussing it with overseas countries.
Having gone into the election with a commodity commission as the great flag flying from the masthead of the Labour Party's policy, what does the Minister do? Shortly after getting into power, he had the meeting of which I have spoken. Did he discuss commodity commissions? Did he tell the meeting that he intended to introduce one? If, having had the meeting, he did not put those who are


party to the agreement on notice that he intended to introduce a commodity commission, perhaps in the coming Parliamentary Session, I do not believe that this House or the country would believe him if he were to say that he still intended to bring in a commodity commission. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he discussed this. I would be in order only to discuss cereals in this context, but if we are not to have a marketing board or a commodity commission for cereals I wonder whether we will have a marketing board of commodity commission for any other commodity.
The third plank of the right hon. Gentleman's platform was cheap credit for farmers. An organisation was to be set up which was to be supported by the Treasury to give credit on special terms to the agricultural industry. What is the position now? One of the first Measures to be presented in this Parliament is a Bill of which the provision of credit is an integral part. Is this credit to be at special terms of interest? As I see it, it is not.
What special credit terms are to be made available to farmers? This Bill is brought in, and credit is an integral part of it, but it is credit on ordinary terms. What will the cereal growers think? Should they accept this form of credit which is not on special terms, or should they wait until a fresh credit organisation is set up? Has the Minister made any move in this regard? Has he discussed it with his advisers? If he did, they would be likely to tell him politely to do his own dirty work. They would say that this was not something profitable to take up at official level and that he must take it up at ministerial level. Then, he would discuss it with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the increase in Bank Rate in recent weeks, as I have a soft spot for the Minister I should not like to be a fly on the wall during that conversation, because he would get the thick end of it.
I do not think, therefore, that any producer marketing boards will be brought in by the Government. I do not think that there will be commodity commissions. Certainly, there is nothing cheap about the credit which is being brought in in this Bill.
What of the future? Perhaps we will be told that the Government plan to do all these things in time. If we are told that, I would find it very hard to believe, for two reasons. The first is because these ideas do not make sense, and I have a sufficiently high opinion of the Minister's desire to serve well the industry and trades for which he has some responsibility to believe that if they do not make sense he will not wish to introduce them. The second reason is because, anyway, he will not have the time, since with the public opinion polls showing a steady decline in the Government's popularity, the Prime Minister will seek an early election before the full enormity of the follies which the Government have perpetrated has been borne in on the mass of the people.
It is easy to see the real reasons why we are witnessing the Socialist Government, introducing this Conservative Measure. [Laughter] The hon. Gentleman laughs. Does he not agree that this is a Conservative Measure? In the Labour Party's wild desire to pick up votes in the countryside—where incidentally they were remarkably unsuccessful—they dreamt up a lot of wheezes which they thought would sound popular. Now that they are in power and have the benefit of advice from responsible and experienced people they realise that these ideas do not stand up.
This is not the fault only of the Minister, for, we imagine, the First Secretary bears the main responsibility for this pre-election agricultural policy. Anyway, it was he who announced it. In view of this, I do not expect that the Minister of Agriculture is likely to make this mistake again and allow it to be done by the First Secretary.
The industry must be tolerant of the fact that these pledges given in the election apparently amount to nothing, because there is so little knowledge or experience in agriculture among those on the Government side. I agree that the Minister was P.P.S. to Lord Williams when he was Minister of Agriculture. He certainly makes the most of it. Sometimes he makes more than the most of it. In the current "Who's Who", the right hon. Gentleman is described, not as having been Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, but as Private Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry


of Agriculture. Now that he is Minister in his own right he will, perhaps, get this altered in the next edition.
We must congratulate the Minister on his courage in introducing the Bill, for he is, by its omissions, being forced to admit that his party's pre-election policy of marketing boards and commodity commissions was a lot of hooey. This is why in his public speeches he reiterates so often that he intends to take a pragmatic rather than a dogmatic view of agricultural policy. What he means by that is that he realises that his party offered a false prospectus to the industry and now that he has responsibility he has no alternative but to chuck it over. We should not grumble too much about this, for if being pragmatic means that he is chucking over these ludicrous ideas and introducing Tory measures, as he is today, he can be sure of our support.
This Bill is the first good thing which has happened to agriculture since the Government took office. Hitherto, hardly a week has gone by without the Government burdening the industry with extra costs. The 15 per cent. surcharge, the extra petrol tax, the increased National Insurance stamp and higher Bank Rate have all served to increase the industry's costs. I shall be very surprised if these extra costs, together with the increased wage award, do not involve the industry in an extra £30 million next year.
At last the Government have introduced this Measure which they inherited from us and which will do good. We look forward to examining it in detail in Committee. Meanwhile, since in the best tradition of Conservative agricultural legislation, we believe that it will serve well the interests of the industry, the trade and the consumers, we will be glad to give it a Second Reading.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. David Ensor: I thought, when this debate started, that we would talk about cereals. However, the right hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) has launched us into the political field. I suggest that he is completely on the wrong lines.
The real problem of the farmers has always been uncertainty. When the right hon. Gentleman alleges that there is nobody on this side of the House who knows anything about farming, he is

making a very great mistake. When I gave up the law and went into farming, I spent two and a half years as a farm-worker. I farmed for 10 years, and I know a little about the practical side of farming. As I say, uncertainty has always been the problem of the farmers, be it big or small. Uncertainty has been the terror ever since farmers and farm-workers made such a vast contribution to the war effort from 1939 onwards.
Free marketing has been the curse of the agricultural industry for years. I welcome the Bill on the ground that it will bring some order to the chaos which has existed for so long. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned certain marketing matters. Anyone who knows anything about the marketing of agricultural products knows the appalling situation which has been going on for years because of the insane attitude to a free market which has been insisted on for so long.
I do not think that anybody who knows anything about agriculture—and I doubt whether there are many hon. Members who really know the inner details of agricultural work fails to appreciate what good was done by the introducton of the Milk Marketing Board and the Egg Marketing Board. I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend will go further and will introduce a great many more marketing boards which will bring some order out of the agricultural marketing chaos which has existed for so long.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ensor: I will give way in a moment.
In my practical experience of marketing, I have had the misfortune to sell 1 cwt. of washed carrots for Is. 6d. when they were in the shops the next day at 9d. a lb. I have sold at Christmas time in a free market, as it is called, 7 lb. capons at 5s. which were sold within the next two or three days for 25s. I have seen the rings and rackets working in the auction markets throughout the country. I have seen dealers in markets refuse to bid for pen after pen of pigs and then go round the corner to the local "pub" and divide them out. I have seen it all; I know it all. These are some of the reasons why I welcome the Bill.
The Bill will have a considerable effect not only from the point of view of ordinary marketing of cereals, but upon the, marketing of cereals throughout the world. Quite recently, in Brussels, it was agreed that from 1st July, 1967, the price in the Common Market countries per ton for soft wheat should be £38, £33 for barley and £34 for rye. I think that we might say to ourselves, "Thank goodness we are not in the Common Market", because if we had to bring up our prices to that figure, I shudder to think what would happen to the cost of living.
It is a fact that, as a result of this figure, Germany and Italy will have to reduce their prices to that grade, France has to raise her price, and raise it considerably, which, I believe, will mean a considerable incentive for the increase of the price of grain throughout France. I am certain that that will mean a problem with regard to the import of grain from the Commonwealth countries and from the U.S.A.
The Bill can do nothing but good to enable our producers to have orderly marketing, and, generally speaking, forward contracts which they have never had before. I only hope that this is the beginning of a marketing system which will give confidence to our farmers, confidence to our farmworkers and produce again that confidence which we had under that great Minister of Agriculture, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, in 1947.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I rise for the first time in this House. It is a moment of considerable trepidation. I think that I am lucky in one way, because the Bill which is before us is one which is not contentious. Therefore, temptation is not put in my way on this occasion.
I have said that I viewed this moment with trepidation. Coming as I do from Westmorland, I wondered whether I could find some inspiration from the great Westmorland poet, William Wordsworth, at this moment. I remembered that he had written some lines on Westminster Bridge and I wondered whether there was some inspiration there.
Unfortunately, I found none. But I found some lines he wrote at the same time which, I think, are appropriate in the life of any new Member of this House. At a particularly gloomy moment, at the same time as "Ode on Westminster Bridge", he wrote this:
O friend! I know not which way I must look
For comfort, being as I am, oppresst.
I felt that this was particularly appropriate for this moment.
I have great pleasure, too, in making reference to my predecessor in this House, because I follow Mr. William Vane, who served this House with great distinction for 19 years. He has left behind him a great warmth of feeling and great respect. He served this House with great distinction, serving at the Ministry of Pensions and at the Ministry of Agriculture. For that reason I feel that it is particularly appropriate that I, as his successor, should be speaking in an agricultural debate. He has now gone to another place, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well there.
My constituency of Westmorland is mainly a rural county. It is one of the few one-county, one-seat constituencies left in England. I suppose that there are few Members of the House who represent a region of such scenic splendour as I do. Its countryside is varied. There are the lovely valleys and lovely hills of the Eden and the Lune Valleys. There is also, of course, the most famous region, the Lake District. This is an enormously varied place, varying from the gay beauty of Windermere to the precious tranquillity of Ullswater, which is a subject which I may wish to bring up on a more contentious occasion in the future.
The main industry in my constituency is agriculture. But it is a type of agriculture which is somewhat removed from cereal growing and cereal marketing, which we are talking about this afternoon. The principal part of the agricultural industry in Westmorland is stock rearing, sheep production and milk production. I should like to speak about the Bill, first, on the impact which it has on those parts of our country and those parts of our agricultural industry which are devoted to stock rearing and milk production.
I think that I can speak with a little authority on this subject, because a little


under two years ago I was lucky enough to be elected to a study group which the National Farmers' Union set up to examine and to try to find ways of improving cereal marketing. On that body, I was elected to represent the six Northern counties of England. Consequently, there was a very great preponderance among producers and among farmers in those areas to keep livestock and to be net users of cereals rather than net producers.
During the last two years, as the feelings of that study group have emerged I think that it is true to say, that the findings and recommendations of that study group which was set up by the National Farmers' Union have had an enormous influence on the Bill which we are debating this evening. I have, during the last two years, had considerable consultation with farmers in the north of England who are net users and net consumers of cereals. I have found there a complete understanding of the aims of the Bill. I have found that there is no feeling at all among farmers who are net consumers of cereals that the Bill is a sort of "barley barons' bonanza". There is no feeling that this is a lurid plot by the barley producers of the eastern part of the country to jack up the price paid by the net users.
The intention behind the Bill, as I understand it, is quite simply to "bridge that gap" between the price which home-produced cereals make on the home market and their value on the world market. It has come out over the years, as has already been said in this debate, that this gap has appeared where cereals produced at home were not making the price they were worth on the world market. There has been a poor history here. The Minister, I believe, has said already that the formation of this authority will see the end of the working party which published the guide prices. I think that it would be appropriate at this moment to pay a tribute to the work of the working party over the years. It has done a magnificent job. The gap between its guide prices and the actual market prices has shown where the problem lies. It needs to be closed and I hope that the Authority will be able to do the job.
It should be said that the principal beneficiary of the Bill is the Ministry. The cereal producer himself will gain very little in total return through the

Bill. As the market price is pushed up, if possible to the price which the grain is worth on the world market, so the difference is then made up by smaller subsidies. But there are certain advantages to growers in the proposals. One of them is that the grower can expect to get more out of the market. If growers can obtain more from the market, this reduces the possibility that at a future Price Review the Ministry will say that the subsidy bill is too high and that they must lower the guarantee price.
At the same time, if the price which home-grown grain fetches on the home market can be increased, there will be less danger that the industry in future will have to suffer the penalties which are imposed on the subsidy bill in a season when the standard quantity is exceeded and the market price has not reached the target indicator price.
Net users of cereals understand quite well, certainly in the north of England, that there is likely to be a very small rise, if any rise at all, in feed costs because the basic price of cereals is likely to be marginally increased. There is very little evidence that we should expect a rise in the price of feeding stuffs because we are trying to get a fair price for home-produced cereals. It is also a very good thing, and much appreciated by the users of cereals, that they are to have representing them on the Authority people who are net users. In passing, may I support my right hon. Friend in his comments on the possibility of having on the Authority people who are not growers of cereals at all. I see little objection to that.
I am sure that we all hope that the reserve powers which are contained in the Bill will not need to be used and that the arrangements for forward-contracting and advance payments will even out the supply of grain on to the market so that the price received will roughly equal what the grain is worth on the world market. But there ought to be some assurances from the Minister that in seasons such as that through which we have just passed these reserve powers will not be used with reluctance. These powers are the teeth of the Bill, and it would be a great mistake if they were to be left in abeyance over the years and not used. In the season through which we have just passed we experienced in August and the first


part of September an average market price for feeding barley of under 18s. a cwt. when the target indicated price was 19s. I hope that had the Authority been working in such a season, the reserve powers would have been used.
I have been extremely glad to speak on the Bill. Cereal marketing has been virtually unchanged for 100 years, and I believe that the Bill, if it can be implemented in the way which we all want to see, will bring great stability to agriculture and particularly to those members of the industry who are producers of cereals. I think that we must strive for forward-contracting and an evening out of the supplies to the ultimate users. I see in the Bill a new vista in marketing lying ahead of us.
I am most grateful to hon. Members for their tolerance. I am extremely happy that I have been able to play a small part in the passage of the Bill, for I believe that it marks an important landmark in agricultural marketing.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I rise to make my maiden speech with a sense of awe and, I hope, an apparent humility, and I ask the House for its indulgence and trust that it will forgive me if I am controversial.
I hope that the House will forgive me, too, if I first speak about my own constituency. I have the honour to represent the constituency of Torrington, a constituency with a reputation for fierce and hard elections, none harder than the last. There is no doubt that North Devon, West Devon and North Cornwall are very politically minded. Traditions die hard. The area of my constituency is very large and it is very scattered. It stretches from Hartland and Clovelly—lovely names—to Chagford; and from Westward Ho! to Crediton, all well known to holiday makers. Our population in the West Country is doubled in the summer months. Quite frankly, I say in my own dialect, "Us be pleased to see 'em".
Our people are hard-working as they seek to earn a living from the land and as they cope with the strong Atlantic gales. Of course, agriculture is not the only way of life. Many retired people come into my constituency and, of course, they are very welcome. Industry is playing an ever-increasing part in our

lives. This is to be seen in the Appledore, Bideford and Torrington area, an area which has suffered considerably in the past from unemployment. It suffers from unemployment now. We have 4 per cent. unemployment, and we have had this bad pocket of unemployment for some time.
I am pleased to see that, through the help of the Local Employment Act and, of course, the very energetic efforts of the local council at Bideford and the Bideford Development Project, this situation is altering. There is a new spirit and tremendous possibilities as the new factories emerge and become a reality. Our thanks are due to those who have worked so hard to this end, but we must redouble our efforts. This will not only help the unemployed now, but will help the young people to obtain employment near their own homes. It will help, too, to check the drift away from the West Country. It is not commonly known that this has always been a considerable problem. Our unemployment figures do not give the true picture. There is a considerable drift away from the West Country, and we hope that these new industries will help to check it.
We had a famous by-election some years ago. Some people will not like to be reminded of it. The name of Torrington was heard all over the land. Thus, it is an honour to represent the constituency. My predecessor, Mr. Percy Browne, is a very fine man, and there is no doubt at all that he will be a very difficult Member to follow in the House. He was, I believe, well-liked in the House, and he was certainly well known throughout the West Country for his efforts to help agriculture. I hope that he will soon be well again. I hope that he will be 100 per cent. fit again. Many will be delighted if he is able to come back to the House in the future.
I turn to the Bill, which is important for my constituency. It may come as a surprise to some hon. Members when I say that we are not concerned only with stock-rearing, with livestock and with the production of milk; an ever-increasing number of farmers are producing cereals, although we have not yet reached the height of some of the other counties such as Wiltshire, Norfolk


and Suffolk, with their rotation of four years barley and one year in the South of France. But barley and wheat is playing an ever-increasing part in the West Country's farming rotation.
I welcome this step forward in the better marketing of cereals. There can be no doubt that farmers have come a long way along the road of organised marketing and I hope that they will continue along that path. I welcome the Bill because it represents planning by consent rather than by compulsion. I hope that this will continue because I warn the Government that it is easier to lead farmers, particularly West Country farmers, than it is to try to use compulsion. I hope that when we come to consider the whole business of meat marketing that, too, will be done by planning by consent rather than by compulsion.
The Government inherited many things, we are constantly being told, but I must point out that while that may be true of other matters, they certainly inherited the foundation of this Measure, for that was laid by my party. This is not the only agricultural foundation which my hon. and right hon. Friends have laid. Much of what has and will be achieved was originated by the Conservative Party, and I am proud to be a member of that party. Consider, for example, the Bacon Agreement and the Cereals Import Price Control. All these schemes will benefit agriculture for many years to come.
Clause 1 of the Bill is designed to establish the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, with at least 21 members. There will be nine growers, nine users and three independent members. I hope that room will be found for the agriculture co-operative movement to be well represented. That movement has done and is doing a great job and is playing its full part in the productivity of the nation. Co-operation within the industry is vital, particularly for the small farmer, and I hope that room will be found in the Authority for the agriculture cooperative and other members to be represented.
I also hope that the small country miller will have his place in the Authority, for he, too, is playing a vital part

in agriculture, particularly on the financial side. A tremendous amount of credit is given by the small country miller and I hope that his interests will be represented and that it will not be left to the large compounders who, frankly, I sometimes regard with suspicion.
Clause 2 deals with bonus payments and loans to growers. The position of the small grower should be made clear in this context, and there are many of them in my constituency. The small man must usually sell his grain quickly so that he can meet his bills. He cannot afford expensive drying and storage equipment. Despite this, he is helping to pay for a bonus which he does not get. Indeed, he cannot always take advantage of these schemes and, as a result, the bigger grower has the advantage once again.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at the problems of the small man in the agricultural industry, particularly in the West Country, and especially the small farmer who uses his grain for feed. We in the West Country will be watching the position carefully, particularly as it applies to cereal feed, and we hope that the small man will benefit. I hope that the Government will do something to help the small grower in these problems and encourage him by word and deed, for instance by making arrangements for cooperative driers and storage facilities. The Government must play their part if these problems are to be solved.
I hope that the Authority will be a success. It will work only if farmers and merchants are prepared to make it work. We have seen evidence of this in the past; that unless there is co-operation and a spirit of wanting something to work, the project fails. I hope that all concerned will do their best to make the Authority a success.
I believe that as a result of the Bill, and through organised marketing, we may in future see a larger acreage of cereals being grown. Perhaps the time may come when we will be able to export grain. Certainly, through the Authority it will be possible to improve both quality and quantity through research, and I hope that the Authority will pay special attention to the whole sphere of research.
I have not heard very much about the importing of grain and the activities of the Authority on this score. Market


intelligence is mentioned in Clause 6, but how far is there contact with overseas suppliers? This is an important matter and we should be told what arrangements there will be to gain the co-operation of importers. The Authority will have to look into this matter and watch it carefully.
I hope, too, that the Authority will look into what I call the grain-milk balance. This balance can be adjusted and corrected. It is vital to agriculture generally and I hope that there will be close co-operation between the Milk Marketing Board and the Authority. I appreciate that I am treading on dangerous ground from the point of view of the production areas, but it is worth emphasising that this matter should be kept very much in mind.
Through this and other schemes I am sure that the agricultural industry can play an ever increasing part towards helping to make our economy sound. Since achieving a saving in imports is vital to the economy, I am sure that agriculture can and must make an even bigger contribution. We have by no means reached the limit and agriculture is ready and willing to play a bigger part.
I hope that the food bill can be cut still further by a vigorous, healthy and prosperous agricultural industry and so be of benefit to the farmer, the housewife and our balance of payments.

5.7 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: It falls to me to have the pleasant privilege of congratulating my two hon. Friends on their maiden speeches, which they made with fluency and authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is to be congratulated on following in the tradition of our old friend Willie Vane, who is now distinguishing himself in another place under a different name. I can assure my hon. Friend that he made a start which is in the best traditions of his predecessor.
I would particularly like to congratulate him on the part he evidently played in the spade work carried out within the National Farmers' Union in preparation for the valuable Measure which we are discussing. I am sure that the whole House agrees that my hon. Friend

spoke with both authority and interest on this important subject. We look forward with great pleasure to hearing him often in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) certainly comes here with a great reputation, coming as he does from a fiercely fought constituency in the West Country. I congratulate him on having won such a splendid victory. By his speech we could see that he, too, was in the best traditions of his predecessor, Percy Brown, who won the affection and respect of all hon. Members in showing the rugged, independent spirit which we all knew would come from him.
As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington speaking about the problems of the small farmer in the West Country I thought that we would have the pleasure of hearing from him often as an avowed champion of the small farmer, whose interests need continuous care and thought if he is to continue to get a living in this highly competitive world. We look forward with great interest and pleasure to hearing my hon. Friend in future, and I warmly congratulate him.
I should like to say a brief word of welcome to the Bill, and I was glad to hear the Minister congratulating my right hon. Friend on his part as the architect of the Bill. It is a most valuable Measure and a complement to the Order which appears under the 1964 Agriculture and Horticulture Act which makes provision for the minimum import price and makes this delicate balance of machinery to integrate import supplies with home production.
There are two beneficiaries from the Bill. The growers will benefit by improved marketing, but so will the taxpayer if the tone of the market is improved, as I expect it will be, as the result of the actions of this Authority. I should like to congratulate particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) on the great skill that he showed in negotiations with the interests concerned, the farmers' interests, the National Farmers' Union, and the milling and compounding interests, on the other hand, in getting agreement in this very difficult field.
What my right hon. Friend achieved is to preserve the benefits of the free market


while introducing a substantial measure of stability and this valuable piece of machinery for the general improvement of cereal marketing. I feel that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor), who I am sorry to see is not in his place now, was really right off the ball in decrying the value of the free market, and I should be very surprised if the Minister, or his hon. Friend, when he replies tells us that he intends to close down the free market and introduce some control of marketing system.
In fact, the free market, with all its faults, has the great virtue of equating supply and demand to the great benefit of the consumer interest. If we can introduce a Measure of this kind, which will improve the system of marketing at the same time as preserving the free market, then we shall certainly have made real progress. I would say particularly in regard to the compounders and the millers, who purchase huge quantities—millions of tons—of grain in the world market for consumption in this country, both by human beings and livestock, that it was particularly important that their freedom and incentive to get the best bargains and their great skill in purchasing in world markets should not be interfered with by this Measure but that they should be left to continue to exercise these skills which are very much to the benefit of the whole community. This Measure has succeeded in doing that.
I have watched cereal marketing particularly closely in the last three years as Chairman of the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee which gives grants to encourage the improvement of marketing of the different commodities. I have for some time been aware that although in some respects the cereal market is efficient and satisfactory, in other respects it is far from it. It is efficient and satisfactory so far as the compounders and millers have a thoroughly efficient system of getting the grain from the farms into their mills and factories efficiently and cheaply, but it is not satisfactory from the point of view of the growers bringing their grain on to the market at the right time and in the right condition.
There has been a tendency throughout for the supplies of home-grown grain to arrive on the market unevenly, sometimes

in short supply and sometimes in excessive supply, and uneven in quality as well. The result has been that almost continuously the market for home grain tends to run at £1 or £2 a ton under the price level of imported grain of similar qualities. I have noticed particularly in regard to French wheat, which is very much the same as ours in quality, that almost invariably it makes £1 or £2 a ton more than ours because of its greater uniformity in quality and the quantity coming forward.
As I was one of the architects of the present deficiency payments system, this has been somewhat of regret to me, because I expected, when we invented this system 11 or 12 years ago, that the market itself would return sufficient premium for higher quality to reward the farmer who put his grain on the market in the best possible condition and quality. In fact it has not done so. The extra premium that the farmer gets for a good consignment of grain is only marginally better than that for the bad consignment. There is not sufficient incentive there. There is a complex of causes for this. We have moved a long way from the old days that I can remember, before the war, when the grain was put up in stacks and taken up by the binder and one waited for the threshing machine to come round, and sold the grain many times over. One sold it first to the bank manager to secure one's overdraft, then as security for the feedingstuffs merchant, and so it carried one through the winter very satisfactorily, and, at the end of it, one sold it to the local miller who was quite satisfied to take it—at least his bill got cleared.
In those days it was the threshing teams which came round to take it. They were very efficient cleaners and the grain come forward at a fairly steady pace as the teams went the round of the farmers in the winter months, and it was pretty clean. Now the grain, certainly in England, is taken by the combines. It tends to come in a very big lump immediately after the harvest, when the farmers have not adequate storage, and far too little of it is cleaned by the combine. In many cases, the smaller farmer has not the adequate machinery on his farm, so the grain tends to have too much weed seed in it and too much moisture when it goes on the market.
It is because of this unevenness of supplies and unevenness of quality on the market that the low quality grain tends to depress the general tone of the market and that pulls down the prices for the good quality as well. This is probably related to a large extent to the fact that we nowadays do not deal with the small country miller but with the huge millers and big compounders who want large consignments of grain to make up a batch for their processing. Therefore, the average quantity of grain grown by the growers in this country of 100 tons is far too small to make up a batch and the compounder or miller has to bulk up the good with the bad and therefore he is not willing to pay a sufficiently large differential.
The answer to this problem, certainly in the first place, is a system of forward contracts. There is no doubt at all of that. This will make sure that there is an orderly supply of home-grown grain going on to the market. This is the first step. It is then only a relatively short step from that, having made a contract to deliver a set quantity of grain on a certain date, for the farmer to consider delivering the set quantity of grain on that date as against the price he has already settled.
I am quite certain that as a result of this Measure we shall first see fixed targets for prices, followed by fixed targets for quality. In the setting of the bonus for the fixed contract, it will be very important for the Authority to set the bonus high enough to attract the farmers into making these contracts—and keeping them, because the only penalty for not delivering the grain is that the farmer loses the bonus. It is of vital importance that there should be complete confidence between miller, compounder and farmer in regard to the fulfilment of these contracts if we are to get the benefit we all want out of this system. I believe that this is the right way. I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister on proceeding with this Bill, as we have seen that this is exactly the right path to the improved marketing of cereals.
I should like an assurance that this system of bonus payments for forward contracts is applicable to farmers who come together to market their cereals as
a group, either as a company under the Industrial and Provident Acts or as a co-operative. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington is absolutely right in thinking that it is most important that this Measure should give the maximum benefit to the small farmer. The very big farmer is probably big enough now to look after himself, and to make contracts direct with the miller or the compounder. It is the small farmer for whom we want to cater.
I have in mind a group of farmers in Kent who have come together to market their cereals. They have found that they have to bulk their supplies over a period of three months at a time, and then bulk the prices in order to get the maximum benefit of flexibility through the merchant through whom they sell the grain. If the small farmer is to get the full benefit from this Measure it is most important that the machinery should be sufficiently flexible to allow the bonus to be payable through the group to the individual farmer. I should be grateful for an assurance on that point.
I congratulate the Minister on including the research Clause. That, I am sure, is right. A very great deal still needs to be done in research into bulk handling, conditioning and storage in order to get our grain up to the top quality in presentation. This Authority is entirely the right body to finance this work. It may have to do some of the work direct itself, or it may put the research out to other agencies, but the work urgently needs doing—there is no doubt about that. I hope that the Minister will give the Authority the greatest possible encouragement to get right on with that job. I warmly welcome the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will bring it into action just as soon as he can.

5.23 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I feel that I must crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this debate has so far been rather one-sided. Since we had the two main speeches we have had only one back-bench speech from the Government side, but we have had two maiden speeches from this side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has congratulated my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) but I want to add my


own congratulations so that they may feel that they are getting their full share. The whole House has listened to them as experts in farming and as representing two very well-known and distinguished constituencies. I hope that the House will have the pleasure of hearing them both again, though not necessarily on their own subject of agriculture. One of the great virtues of the House is that one learns to speak on subjects about which one previously knew nothing but has had to mug up.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak, as my division of Eye, in Suffolk, has 189 villages—in fact it has the largest number of square miles and of acres in all the granary of England known as East Anglia. I, too, welcome this Bill, which follows action taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) when he was Minister of Agriculture. The present Minister rather smoothly accused us on this side of not having done more about marketing earlier in our 13 years of office, but the reason, obviously, is that until one had some form of control over imports one could not have such a Bill as this. This has followed the Price Review—

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that there should be no marketing until we have control of imports? On that argument, there would never be any marketing arrangements at all.

Sir H. Harrison: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford dealt with that, but the fact is that this Bill could not come along until we had some control.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the immense amount of work he did to get agreement over the control of imports. If I may say so very modestly, it all came after I had had a lot of talks with farmers in my division, and after I had been fortunate in the Ballot for private Members' time in May, 1963. I was the first Member to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend will remember that on that occasion the House was kind enough to pass the Motion I tabled. It was following that that all this had flowed.
It is the fortunes of war and of elections that has led the present Minister—and

I congratulate him on it—rather than my right hon. Friend to bring forward this Measure, but at least it has given me the opportunity to congratulate my neighbour and very excellent friend the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on taking his seat for the first time on the Front Bench. We have been very used, first on the Government side and now in Opposition, to hearing my hon. Friend speaking from the very back of the back benches, and we are now very pleased to see his back as he sits on the Front Bench. I hope that this will not only be the case in Opposition but that this honour will be but the prelude to the decades during which he will sit on the Treasury Bench.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with the apparent implication of my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Torrington that some barley growers do rather well. I move a lot round my constituency, but I have never found a farmer who grows barley who seemed to live on the scale implied by my hon. Friends—but possibly these farmers are all in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.
I think that I am the only hon. Member who worked for his living, as I did for a large number of years before the war, as a corn merchant. I well remember the passing of what was, perhaps, the forerunner of our system of subsidy payments—the Wheat Act, brought in by a Conservative Government in the 'thirties. remember how much it benefited the farmers, though the Treasury in those days had to make no contribution at all.
Here I should like to pay tribute to two men who were on the Wheat Commission, and who had a great deal to do with its work. One of them was the late Samuel Armstrong, a brilliant miller, of Ipswich, and a Suffolk man. The other—another Suffolk man, happily alive today at over 80 years of age—is Colonel Percy Clarke, a barley merchant and feedingstuffs manufacturer, of Framlingham and a great Territorial soldier.
What has been happening in many other firms has happened to our firms. There has been a general tendency for corn merchants and small grist millers to go out of business in face of the amalgamations. Perhaps this is not generally understood in this House where farming


interests are strongly represented, certainly on this side of the House, and where the case for the farmer is forcibly put. I wish to say a word about the corn merchants who sometimes are thought of as the farmer's enemies, whereas for years they have been his friends. In general they welcome this Bill. We know full well that often in the past at the request of a farmer they have bought grain which has just been harvested, paid for it, and not moved it from the farm till many weeks later, and provided sacks.
It is sad to see the number of these firms gradually getting fewer in the interior of the country because of the pressure of the port millers. We have had tremendous increases in the quantity of barley grown and also in the amount of wheat used for feeding stock. I believe that this is still an expanding side of our agriculture. The amount of barley grown has contributed to our balance of payments because it can and is used very successfully as a substitute for maize.
In the years ahead automation will play a bigger part than ever on our farms. We often think that we make more progress than our fathers and grandfathers did, but progress never stops; it is always going on. We saw at the Suffolk show only last year that now combines can be used for harvesting by remote control. This is a system which may be used a great deal in future. I also believe that a great deal more automation will go into feeding stock on farms. Sometimes we think of automation as being connected only with firms with millions of pounds of capital.
I was lucky the other day to visit a new small firm in Woodbridge which had adapted some old maltings of Lowe, Hepplewhite and Lowe. By spending a few thousand pounds an automatic mill had been built by which grain could go into the machines and not be handled at all before it came out as pellets or meal in bags. There is much room for still further automation and improvement on our farms.
I had hoped when this Bill was mooted that its assistance would be on an acreage basis rather than on a tonnage basis for cereals, but I accept the difficulties with which, probably the present Minister, and his predecessor had to cope. This is something which we must watch as yields increase

with the aid of research. We should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the debate that producers in this country will get their full share of our own expanding market.
We may have to look carefully at Clause 6 when the Bill is in Committee and we may have to make a few adjustments there. On Clause 8, I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he will allow the Bill to work when it becomes an Act. I thought from his opening remarks that he rather expected opposition in Committee when he said that he hoped he would get the Bill through for the harvest of 1965. That may be because of lack of legislation coming forward which may affect the length of the Easter and Whitsun Recesses, but I hope that we shall get the Bill on to the Statute Book early in the New Year.
It is important to give corn merchants an opportunity of handling the grain and to see how that works under the Bill without having to allow the Authority to trade straight away. Of course I know that this could be done only on application to the Minister. Must that application be backed by a majority, or will it be open to a few to make an application and then the Minister will give authority
to trade? This should be the very last step. I hope that the Minister will consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said about the actual machinery by which this can be brought about.
I bring to the attention of the House the enormous increase in storage facilities which now are available on a farm. In my constituency, as a result of the wet summer of 1963, many driers were put in on medium-sized farms. I was lobbied, written to and rung up by a large number of farmers asking if I could get the Eastern Electricity Board to have their farms connected before the harvest started. The Board was extremely good and it was remarkable to find the number of medium-sized farms which had driers put in, and then this year they were hardly needed because there was a good and dry summer. This provision may be overlooked, but it is of great help to the medium-sized farmer who wants to store his grain. It also helps the small farmer who has no facilities for storage and


likes to market the grain as soon as it is harvested.
Reference has been made to the speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he, rather than the Minister, was framing Labour Party policy. I remember that speech, which was delivered at Swaffham in Norfolk in July, 1963. I think very many farmers were promised that if they voted for the Labour Party they would soon be able to retire on specially favourable terms. But the party's agricultural policy was not at all favourably received in East Anglia. I am delighted to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who won such an outstanding victory. The Minister must remember that the policy advocated by the Labour Party did not endear itself to the people in England's granary in that part of the country. They much preferred my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and were most appreciative of the great work he did in preparation for this Bill.
Of course this is not the last word which can be said on the subject, but let us see that we are not taken in by the party dogma of hon. Members opposite and that the Bill has a fair opportunity in the next two or three years—with good will from the merchants, farmers and the Government to help it—to work.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: This has been a gloriously cosy discussion so far with hon. Members on both sides of the House saying how splendid the Bill is. I cannot understand the great desire on the part of both Ministers and ex-Ministers to claim parentage of this Bill because, although it may be worthy, it does not tackle the problem at all. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) stated the other day that he could not produce a calf in 100 days. He will be happy to know that 60 days is enough for a mouse to be produced and that hon. Members opposite have been successful in that.
The Bill does not tackle anything. I am very doubtful if it will work. Up to date many inducements have been placed in the way of farmers to hold their grain through the spring, with the promise that all would then be well and they would

recoup the capital costs of installing expensive driers and other machinery. I am confident that in the majority of cases since the end of the war it has paid the farmer to flog his grain off the combine at the price then obtainable.
The scheme for forward contracts may well work, although I doubt it. The real teeth in the Bill, if they are teeth, lie in the reserve powers of the Ministry. It is extraordinary to me that this dynamic Government should produce a Bill which appears to me to be half full of protection for the trade. I dare say that the corn merchants are estimable people. I never tire of hearing how they supply such enormous quantities of credit to farmers, but the Bill is heavily weighted in their favour. I do not know why they should supply half the members of the Authority, thus being on a par with the industry. I suspect that it is because hon. Members on this side of the House favour the trade at the expense of farmers.
I am perfectly certain that the only thing that will be effective in the Bill is the reserve powers for the Authority to move in and put a floor price to the market. This is what farmers have been looking for for a long time. It is high time that the new Minister and his satellites, instead of producing Bills of this sort, looked at the whole structure of agriculture. The Opposition Front Bench should also do so, because they have entirely forgotten that they produced the system of deficiency payments. A large part of the Labour Party's agricultural policy seems to consist of holding up the canonisation of Tom Williams as an example for all other parties to follow.
I should like to take the House back—it is relevant to the Bill—to the basic causes of agricultural policy on both sides of the House since the war. Tom Williams introduced it in an expansion scheme to help the balance of payments and increase agricultural production in the desperate situation we were then in. To do this, he promised the farmers longterm security of guaranteed prices. For that, the farmers accepted lower prices during that period than they would have got on a free market. This was the basic reason behind Tom Williams's Bill and policy in the Labour Party. The Labour Party made a number of mistakes in it,


but otherwise it was a plain common sense thing for the good of the country and not specifically for the good of farmers. Nevertheless, the industry welcomed it.
When the Tories came to power they did not like putting a bottom in the market. They wanted to allow our traders, as the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, to go over the world and seek out the cheap grain. So the Tories introduced a system of deficiency payments, the main object of which was to hold down the price of food to the industrial worker, while at the same time allowing us to guarantee prices to farmers so that we could keep up our total production. This was a perfectly worthy objective, if it had worked in that way.
Every since then the Tories have been tinkering with the problem. They have recognised that the solution they sought 10 years ago has not worked. It is a very simple sum. I have been informed by a gentleman in the Library that since 1954, which was when the great freedom started to work, the cost of living has risen by over 30 per cent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would come to the Bill.

Mr. Mackie: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must try to put the basic causes for the failure of the efforts up to now to hon. Members on both sides. Both parties are unable to think basically on this and, as is so often the case, the Liberal Party has to point out the basic causes—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All this may or may not be perfectly true. I express no view on that. All I would ask the hon. Gentleman to do is to link all this to the Bill.

Mr. Mackie: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will endeavour to link it to the Bill. What I am trying to point out is that, because the deficiency payment has basically failed to work, Measures such as this Bill are fathered on both sides of the House, whereas we need to sweep the system away. What is needed today is the very policy which the Labour Party advocated during the election. Imports of grain into this country should be regulated. In the Bill there is no co-ordination.

There may be information, but there is no co-ordination of the import of cereals. Indeed, the Labour Government are following on the foolish policy of the Conservatives in actually asking foreign importers to increase the price of grain we import so as to keep down the Exchequer liability. It appears to me that this is practically insane, but it was put forward by the Conservatives as practical policy. I am sorry that the Bill does not deal with that and that hon. Members opposite are following in this extremely foolish pursuit.
If hon. Members opposite want to put a real bottom in the market of farming, instead of endeavouring to tinker with it, as in the Bill, they should import grain and release it on to the market at a guaranteed price. This would give real stability and would save the Exchequer a great deal of money. It would put money into the Exchequer, instead of requiring, as in the Bill, money both from the Exchequer and the farming community.
As I read it, the Authority is not to make a levy on the merchants. The money for the trading is to come from the farmers, although the Government intend to pay the administrative expenses. I think that the Bill will go through, as both the devil and the other devil are for it. It is a small Bill and one which will only help to solve the problem. We had hoped that hon. Members now sitting on the Treasury Bench, who are looking rather embarrassed, would produce a dynamic policy to tackle the basic causes of agricultural unrest. We had hoped that they might even produce the policy they advocated during the election, which was remarkably similar to the policy advocated by the Liberal Party.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: They are all Tories now.

Mr. Mackie: With great regret, I give a qualified welcome to this miserable little Bill and regret even more that there is no sign of any basic policy for agriculture coming from the Labour Government.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: We have just had a fine blast from the Highlands. I suspect that the qualified welcome the hon. Member for Caithness


and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) gave relates only to the oats the Government may be rolling metaphorically through the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman, of all people, surprised me by complaining that this was a cosy family party. From anyone else it might have been somewhat unparliamentary to refer to gentlemen in this Chamber as satellites I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take no offence.
I welcome the Bill, because it carries out the hopes of many of my constituents who are not all large cereal growers by any means. Many of them are small farmers who find it characteristically difficult to sell their products.
I would pay a great tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) who initiated this policy. Our memories are all too short. It is a comparatively short time since the world was afflicted with vast cereal surpluses and there seemed little prospect of producing order in the cereal market, yet my right hon. Friend initiated these discussions and I am glad that the Minister has decided to follow them.
This is a change from the characteristic Labour policy as I have heard it. In my ten years' membership of the House the word "Commission" has been dinned in my ears annually, although the meaning has changed. It first came up at a by-election when it was a Commission of the Lucas Report type tied definitely to the conception of State trading. Now we speak of Commissions as more in a co-ordinating rôle, but they are still commodity Commissions. The best comment came from a constituent of mine who said that he thought that it was "all commission and no discount".
The question whether the Minister intends to superimpose a Commission at a later date is one to which naturally we should like to have an answer. I have studied the First Secretary's speech at Swaffham and in it there is a not uncharacteristic saving clause. He said that
The Commissions would supervise and regulate the volume of imports in order to prevent excessive fluctuations in supply from undermining the prices received by domestic producers. They would, as I have already said, encourage the conclusion of long-term commodity agreements with foreign suppliers and,

if need be, trade on their own account. Because of the relative scarcity of information, and the lack of precedent for such commissions we will not determine the exact details of their operations until we have consulted all the interests involved.
Therefore, it seems that it is open to the Minister to do what he likes and we want to know how he proposes to coordinate in practice the flow of imports with the home production.
The Minister has rightly recognised the vital importance of preserving a balance between demand and supply. This is unlike his right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government who, let us remember, only a very short time ago at a Labour Party conference was urging the farmers of Britain to produce all they can and saying, "We will get rid of it." That is a very dangerous doctrine and I am glad that the Minister had adopted what is the essentially Conservative policy of aiming to secure a balance between production and use.
This agreement was not easily reached. It took 18 months' solid negotiation of a tripartite nature, and from time to time constituents of mine who were party to the negotiations indicated that their hopes were ebbing and flowing. I am glad that the agreement has come about. There is little fresh that can be said about the Bill because maiden speakers in the debate, particularly, have covered it so well but it gives a real prospect of getting over some of the classic difficulties that derive from the fact that the home-grown cereals tend to be in small lots of different varieties and different quality and in many odd and often inaccessible locations.
It has always been easier for the large user to take imports, and the small individual farmer tends to be a weak seller. This is often put as a point of criticism, but it is not surprising. The farmer has to spend nearly all his time on the job of growing. It is more important to him in point of priority than selling, and he does not have a separate sales department, unlike any other industry. He therefore has to look outside the farm for assistance in selling. He is naturally weak. This is the point of our encouragement for the development of any cooperative enterprise.
On the other hand, the buying trade has been steadily getting stronger. The


country merchant, although his title may remain unchanged, has become absorbed in larger enterprises, as has been mentioned by my own Member, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). I do not know whether he has been absorbed, but I have never tried to sell him any corn and that is perhaps why our relationship is a happy one. But it is desirable that the grower should be better enabled to sell. This the marketing Authority can do.
I hope that forward contracting will enable it to be made reasonably certain that storage will pay. At the moment it may not, because although the sliding scale gives one higher guaranteed prices rising throughout the year, when one comes to sell later in the year—because of the vagaries of the market generally caused by imports—the actual market price may be rather low. That, added to the deficiency payment, may make a return to the farmer less profitable than if he had not used his storage and he had put the grain on the market soon after harvest.
Advance payments will also enable the smaller man, or the man pressed for cash, to take something nearer the time of harvest when he is under economic pressure and hold back his stock until a more favourable time. We shall all benefit from market intelligence, and I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford for the degree of information which he has disseminated during his term of office. The Price Review this year contains a great deal of palatable statistics well presented, and there have been regular publications from the Ministry of news, like market information on cereals, which gives a very clear picture of the general trend of supply and demand.
The fourth inportant development will be in research and development, and that will have an educative function which in the long run may prove one of the most valuable results of having this Authority, at any rate if the experience of the Milk Marketing Board is anything to judge by. The function of that Board in educating farmers in producing good milk of uniform quality and selling it has been immense.
The main question that must remain uttermost in our minds is the link with

imports. How will that balance be struck? It seems likely that pressures will build up again. The probable growth of cereal production, and the assisted exports which may take place from the European Community now that prices have been agreed, will mean that pressures in the world market will grow. We realise that agreement over imported cereals was reached because our traditional foreign and Commonwealth suppliers agreed to limit their exports to this country if we in turn made our contribution to stabilising the market by accepting the doctrine of the standard quantity. Therefore, we have the standard quantity biting this year for the first time because home production exceeds estimates by a good deal. It is important to know how the Government will reconcile this to some extent obvious conflict of interest.
I see from the Minister's market information on cereals published on 2nd December that the provisional forecast of our requirements for consumption in the year 1964–65 is put at 20·6 million tons and the estimated quantity coming forward from home resources at 12·6 million tons, leaving 8 million tons to be imported. That means that the home market has produced nearly 1½ million tons more grain than last year. That is one reason why the standard quantity is "biting". One must say this because some of one's constituents, who realise its purpose only when it does begin to bite, must appreciate that that is the cost, if one likes so to call it, of protecting the system itself. It is important that in future years we should know how the agreement is to be maintained. I notice that in the discussions which took place early in the month with some of the partners to the import agreement, the French do not appear to have been represented although they are parties to the agreement. I should like to know what provisions there are for another meeting.
It is often thought outside this House that agricultural Bills involving financial payments equally involve extra charges on the taxpayer. I re-emphasise that the financing of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority will be borne by the industry within the framework of the deficiency payments and that the Treasury will be accepting the commitment only of certain administrative charges, which for the first year of operation are forecast as


being between £100,000 and £200,000. That should be many times covered by the savings in the deficiency bill from a a more stable market.
I hope, therefore, that this is the first sign, and an encouraging one, that a Labour Government in office will not be doctrinaire on agriculture but will be prepared to learn from the experience of others. This is mainly an enabling Bill. We all want to see the organisation set up and manned. The test will be whether it works. I hope it will and that it will enable us to make further advances in efficiency, in expansion and in productivity.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: It is only right that I should join with all those of my hon. Friends who have given a general welcome to the principle of the Bill. I congratulate also the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his good fortune in inheriting such a fund of wisdom and detail from the former Government who went out of office in October. I presume that, as a result of that clear logic of which there is no greater exponent than himself, being one of my constituents the hon. Gentleman will see fit to support me at the next election as a reward for what I might describe as his inheritance.
Having said that, I must, unfortunate though it is, introduce a carping note into these deliberations. This is a United Kingdom Bill. It applies not only to England and Wales but to Scotland as well. If there have been conspicuous absentees from this House today, they are the representatives of the Scottish Office. I wish, therefore, to register a strong protest about this. It shows, perhaps, the absolute hopelessness and futility of having the Minister who is in charge of Scotland's most important industry sitting in another place. Although the Minister of State at the Scottish Office is supposed to answer agricultural matters in this House, it would seem from his interest in the subject today that his appointment as Minister of State is, as we suspected, perhaps one in name only.
From the actual detail of the Bill, one goes on to wonder whether the lack of interest that is shown by Scottish

Ministers is not also reproduced in the contents of the Bill. It is noticeable that in Clause 2, for example, the Authority is given the duty—the obligation—to prepare and submit schemes for wheat and barley. I interrupted the Minister during his speech to ask why there was no duty to prepare a scheme for oats, and he replied that oats were included in the Bill. Clause 3 merely states, however, that the Authority may submit schemes for other cereals, and I presume that those other cereals include Scotland's main cereal crop, that of oats.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): If the hon. Member refers to the Interpretation Clause, on page 8 of the Bill, he will see the definition of home-grown cereals, which completely answers his question.

Mr. Stodart: I still believe that what I have said is correct. In Clause 2 there is an obligation to produce a scheme for two cereals. In Clause 3 there is a permissive power to produce a scheme for the others. This is typical of the lack of regard shown by hon. Members on the Government benches for the minority producer and for minorities generally.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know that oat production has been declining. I believe that this is a trend that will be halted. In any event, oat production in Scotland is virtually level with that of barley; and with oats being about one-third of the whole of the Scottish cereal output, I should have thought it reasonable that oats should have been included in Clause 2.
There is often criticism—I have met it on several occasions—about what some people regard as the excessive support which is given for cereal production. It is true that the support which is given by the Exchequer to cereal production goes in proportion beyond its actual productive value. We must, however, realise that man has overcome many natural conditions which 20 years ago would have made cereal production virtually impossible. By the production of new varieties of grain and by the invention of new machines, cereals are now being grown on land where 20 or 30 years ago it would have been considered madness to grow them.


So it is clearly necessary that we must take steps to cope with the very big cereal acreage which is today a fact.
We have got to spread the marketing of cereals, and although it may seem that this Bill, with its bonuses for the farmers who make contracts, may appear to favour the big cereal grower, I think there is no possible doubt that if the big grower of cereals is enabled and encouraged to store his grain and to keep it off the market at harvest time, then the small grower, who cannot, perhaps, afford to put up storage, will have a market to sell in which is much firmer because of the absence of grain from his rather stronger brother.
I should like to make a point which I think is one that will be carried further in Committee, and that is on the Authority which it is proposed to set up. I hope very much that we shall have strong representation from those who buy cereals and not only from those who sell them, because, let us face it, even with the production of cereals in this country today, there are far more stock farmers who buy cereals and feed them than there are cereal farmers who sell their grain.
I welcome very much the encouragement of the making of contracts. I would make only this one reservation, and I think it is one of enormous importance. If there is one subject in which I believe the farming community has been pretty backward it is in its general approach to making contracts and to keeping them. It is a terrible tendency of farmers—I speak as one of them—to make a contract to sell, be it potatoes or grain, and then, if at the time of delivery the price is higher than it was when the contract was made, to make all sorts of excuses as to why the potatoes or grain are no longer available. Unless the farming industry can be persuaded to take what is, I believe, the attitude towards contracts of the industrial community of this country in general, namely, that once a contract is signed it must be sacrosanct, then confidence within the trade will be completely lacking, and this scheme will never get off the ground.
With that caveat, and the reservation I have made about the Scottish interests being safeguarded in this Bill, I give it my cordial welcome.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I rise in the few moments which remain before my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) wishes to speak to add my voice to the congratulations which have been directed to those two maiden speakers. I was particularly struck by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), a county I know well. Although I cannot match his Wordsworthian quotation I thought that he put it very well and I was glad to hear it.
Now I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place. He said—I think that I have written his words down accurately—that there was a crisis, insanity and an appalling situation in our cereals marketing arrangements. I can only say that if he had spent any time among the cereal growers of East Anglia, where we know something about cereal growing, he would have realised he was talking nonsense in using those phrases.
When I heard the hon. Member's speech I was reminded of some of the speeches made by Government Members during the election campaign. One of them, in a speech before a group of farmers in my constituency made a speech which led the Socialist candidate, who had made a speech, to ask the chairman of the branch of the National Farmers' Union in that area whether he had "done all right" and the chairman replied, "Yes but 10 minutes' rain would have done more good."
I was reminded of that by the speech of the hon. Member. He said towards the end of his speech, referring to agriculture, "I have seen it all and I know it all." My own impression is that those sentiments can only be applied, on the other side, to the Prime Minister.
As to the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, it is clear that there must be three pillars in this industry in Britain: first, control of imports; secondly, standard quantities; and thirdly,—of which we have the elements in this Bill—better organisation for marketing.
I was struck recently by the accusation that the Conservative Party, in introducing control of imports, had been taxing the children's food. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will throw aside that


monstrous accusation, that the control of imports is taxation of children's food. It is simply not true, and hon. Members opposite know it.
I think that the important thing—and I speak on behalf of those in my own constituency who grow a very great deal of grain—is to establish standard quantities at a level which will allow our own farmers to get the maximum benefit from their increasing efficiency and capacity to grow larger quantities. I think that the standard quantities ceiling should be fixed in such a way as to be flexible so that our growers not only get a fair share of the market, but a larger market in which to share.
The third pillar is better organisation, and it is there that we welcome this very good Bill. There are one or two points on it which are worth raising and I ask these questions on behalf of my constituents. The first is as to the composition of the Authority. The producers are to have nine representatives, the independents three, and the trade nine.
We all welcome the fact that for the first time the trade, and the producers, and the public, as represented by the independent members, are to be got round a table together. I am sure that that is a step forward, but I think that the producers—they certainly are in my area—are concerned about the fact that among the nine representatives who will speak in their name on the Authority there is apparently to be some division between those who are contract producers of cereals and those supposed to be consumers.
In farming, a producer and consumer are very often one and the same person. If one keeps pigs one is just as much a consumer of the grain which one produces as its producer. There is real concern among farmers in my area over the possibility that the nine representatives of the trade, supported perhaps on occasion by the three representatives of the public, and, again perhaps, by some of the nine producers' reprsentatives who are more concerned with consumption than with production, can consistently outvote those who represent the producing element in the cereal growing industry. I would ask the Minister to explain whether or not these fears of producers are well

grounded. I would hope that in Committee we shall be able to deal with those fears in some detail.
Now I should like very briefly to turn to my second point, which is marketing intelligence. Certainly, this is extremely valuable. I have myself seen what value it can be in the United States, where the organisation of cereal marketing has benefited enormously from their effective techniques for marketing intelligence. How is this market intelligence to be disseminated? Is it to be done by broadcasts on the wireless? Is it to be done by papers being sent to individual farmers? Market intelligence is one thing. The important thing is to see that it gets into the hands of those who want to use it, and I should like to know how the Minister proposes to disseminate this important market information which we shall be glad to have.
My third point is about forward contracting. We are all for it, and I think that particularly in the Bury St. Edmunds division farmers have now invested enough in driers, in big storage bins, and in bulk handling, to be able to cope with the whole forward contracting business. We are well set up technically to handle it. Many farmers in my constituency hold as much as 500–600 tons, but I ask the Government to realise that holding wheat is an expensive business. It is particularly expensive when a farmer has to go to his bank and get his money at 7, 8, or 9 per cent.
The Government are seeking to encourage farmers to hold their grain and release it on to the market in an orderly fashion, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that they cannot do this if they are paying 7, or 8, or 9 per cent. for their money. The Government must recognise that there is an economic factor arising from their general policies which affect the farming industry.
I do not wish to speak any longer, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft is anxious to speak, but I emphasise that the only way in which the cereals grower can do his job and produce large amounts of good quality grain for our home market is to be technically efficient. That means that he must make a profit so that he can plough money back into his industry to make sure that he has the machinery


and storage facilities that are necessary. No farmer can do that unless the general policies of the Government enable him to make a sufficient margin of profit.
The farming industry—and this applies particularly to cereal growers—has had to cope with an increase of £16½ million in wage costs. As a result of last October's increase, it is to pay about £2 million a year because of the new import duties, the petrol tax will add £2½ million to its costs, the increased National Insurance contribution will add another £4¾ million, and the increase in the Bank Rate has added about £5¼ million. It has had more than £32 million added to its costs, and if it is to develop the storage facilities and the machinery which will enable it to make use of the Bill, the Government must ensure that there is a margin between costs and income.
I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) on the hard work that he has done to make it possible. I congratulate, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft on what I believe will be his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench. I cannot think of anyone who can put the case for the East Anglian farmer in particular, and British farming generally, better than he can.

6.23 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) when he says that nobody can put the case better than my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) can, and I am looking forward to hearing his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box.
At the same time, I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening for a few minutes before the debate ends, because my constituency can claim to be probably the most productive corn-growing constituency in England. I hope, therefore, that the few remarks that I have to make will not be thought inappropriate to this discussion.
In debating the Bill we have to recognise the climate that is rapidly setting in not only in agriculture, but throughout the whole of the economy. When a farmer is able to tell me that as a result of the

immediate actions of the Labour Government on coming into power his weekly bill has gone up by £70 due to fuel costs, taxation, and National Insurance contributions, we have to recognise that the whole of the industry is likely to be plunged into the same sort of uncertainty as the City of London. Confidence has been greatly shaken, but I will not elaborate on that, because there is not time.
I recognise that the Bill is really the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), and I take this opportunity, as it is the first that I have had in the House, of congratulating him on what he did when he was Minister. I do not ever recollect a Minister being so popular in such difficult circumstances. There was a world of difference between the circumstances which confronted Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and those which confronted my right hon. Friend. I consider that my right hon. Friend came out triumphant at the end, and did a wonderful job for the industry.
I take up a point arising on Clause 1. I am not unduly perturbed about the possible mix-up of those representing the interests of farmers who use home-grown cereals and those who produce them. I think that we too often tend to try to put people into watertight compartments which do not exist, like trying to separate the consumer from the taxpayer. We are all the same people really, and there are very few farmers in the Isle of Ely, which is perhaps the most productive corn producing area in the world, who are not feeding livestock of any sort. As long as the producer's interest, be he producing something which is being fed on cereals, or the cereals themselves, is properly represented on the Authority, I think we can hope that the Authority will be a success.
My only regret on looking back on it all is that we were not able to bring up to date, the old 1932 Wheat Act which, in the Isle of Ely, was the most popular Act of any of the inter-war legislation. I think that some of the corn merchants would have preferred it, and some of the millers, too. We shall have to see how this works out, and it may be that it will have to be adapted as we go along.
I want to raise one particular issue arising out of Clause 6, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able


to say a word about this. My concern arises from subsection (5), which deals with the Authority's power to conduct research. I want to make certain that we are not going to see complications setting in as a result of the establishment of the Ministry of Technology, and what we debated the other day on the Science and Technology Bill regarding the position of the Agricultural Research Council.
Most agricultural research is usually thought to be in the hands of the Agricultural Research Council, and it does magnificent work. I have its report for the year 1962–63, which was published only this month. If one looks through that, one sees that a good deal of agricultural research is going on in cereals, and I hope that this new Authority will not barge and blunder in and upset the equilibrium of the Council.
I think that I understood the Minister to say, when introducing the Bill, that the research which this Authority will be carrying out is clearly specified, and is not concerned with the actual growing of crops, but with the storing and movement of them, the general assessment of market distribution, and so forth. If that is so, it may be all right, but I should like an assurance that the Agricultural Research Council will be working in fairly close association with the Authority, because the Council has done magnificent work for years. It is far more expert in research than a new body is likely to be, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that the Authority works closely with it.
The experience of the Potato Marketing Board has shown that when such bodies are set up there is a need, sooner or later, to build up a reserve fund to deal with years when prices drop. I wonder whether it is the intention to do the same thing here with the Cereals Authority. I hope that it will never be necessary to draw on such a fund, but it would seem to be sound finance to seek to build one up as soon as possible. I should like to know whether it is the intention to do so, and whether growers will contribute to it—or how it will otherwise be financed. This is of immense importance for the well-being of the industry.
I wish the new Authority all possible good fortune. I feel sure that it has a useful job to do for the industry. In the opinion of most farmers in the Isle

of Ely, the biggest thing that my right hon. Friend did was at last to try to balance imported produce with home produce. We must continue to do that if we wish to ensure sound economics in agricultural support.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: My first and very pleasant duty is to congratulate my two hon. Friends, the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland follows a distinguished Member—now Lord Inglewood—who made great contributions to our agriculture debates. My hon. Friend talked chiefly about the new Cereals Authority that we are setting up, and particularly the part that the National Farmers' Union played in it. I know that he was a member of the union team, and we are certain that he will have a lot more to say on the subject in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington, who follows a great friend of mine—Mr. Percy Browne—had a lot to say about his part of the country, which, like Westmorland, is very beautiful. I remember going to Devonshire just over a year ago and talking to many farmers there. I found them rather rugged, outspoken and sincere. They are also very generous. They did not treat me at all kindly at the time, but they were extremely kind to me afterwards.
Although, in reply to a vote of thanks, I said that I did not think that I should be wanting to go back to Devonshire in a hurry, I am already beginning to enjoy the prospect of being asked again, because so much of what was said by my opponents who took part in the debate has now proved to be completely false, and has been turned inside out by the Government, that I am looking forward to my next visit to that county. I hope that Devonshire farmers will accept this as a desire on my part to go there at any time when they may like me to do so.
Both my hon. Friends will realise that for a Conservative Member to get into an agriculture debate is always a difficult undertaking. I therefore congratulate


them on having chosen today to make their maiden speeches. This is in contrast to what has happened on the Government side, from which we have had only one back bench speech.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend referred to the lack of experience and interest shown by the Labour and Liberal Parties in agricultural matters. This was very well illustrated today by the speech of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor). If he is the fount of agricultural wisdom on the Government benches, heaven help his right hon. Friend.
The background to the Bill is the tremendous increase in production which has taken place during the last few years. Cereals production is three times what it was at the end of the war, and barley production seven times what it was a few years ago. Several factors have contributed to this. There is the combine harvester, which enables farmers in the West Country to grow corn where it was impossible to do so before. New varieties of manures and sprays have also made a contribution. It is interesting to note that the price of wheat before the war was 10s. a cwt., when agricultural wages were 30s., whereas the price today is 26s. a cwt. and wages are about £11. It took 3 cwt. of wheat to pay one man for a week in 1939; it now takes 8½ cwt. to do so. That is the measure of the contribution that our agriculture has made to the economy in the last few years.
To those economists who sometimes seek to denigrate British agriculture, I would only say, "Look at the figures already quoted today for wheat and barley in the Common Market—£38 a ton for wheat, and £32 a ton for barley." My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington talked about the barley barons of East Anglia. I have never found one yet. Perhaps I am a little prejudiced or biased, but it is not surprising that some of us took a rather happier view of Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market than did others.
The pressures on the United Kingdom market in the last few years have been very great. This was brought out in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). We owe a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend for bringing in minimum

import prices, thus making the Bill possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said that there had been no changes in cereal marketing for 100 years, and that the whole basis of import control which my right hon. Friend brought in meant a very drastic change in the fortunes of agriculture. I believe that import controls, now followed by the Bill—for which my right hon. Friend must take the credit—will go down in the history of agriculture as a very big step forward.
Whenever I have been to Devon or to other places and have talked to Members of the Labour and Liberal Parties I have always been struck by their support of import control. We had another example of this today from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie). He is all in favour of import control, as are most of us. But we can get it only by agreement with our overseas suppliers.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I talked about import control in terms of import commissions, and said that this was a great deal easier than the kind of control that we exercise when we pay people more for the grain they produce.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member is wrong, because we just would not get that form of import control. If we could get it we would, but it is not possible.
The point is coming home to hon. Members opposite that any form of control over imports—by way of a surcharge or whatever else—is liable to make them very unpopular with foreign countries. When we debate this matter in future I hope that we shall hear rather less about the need for import control in the form adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman in debates and on television and other places before the last election.
I feel that we have to thank my right hon. Friend for obtaining the Bill for us, and for the excellent work that he did in bringing together the two sides of the industry. Anyone who knows the farming industry well appreciates that it is a very great achievement to obtain agreement on the constitution of the Authority among the producers of grain, the farmers who are users of grain, and the trade and compounders. Only


people who have been farming can realise just what this means.
When the Authority is set up, it will have a good many functions; I wish to pick out one or two of the things which I feel that it ought to be doing. I am now dealing with trading functions. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), one of the troubles with the farming industry is that its members present their cereals in a very bad manner. The quality is low. Sometimes the grain is full of weed seeds. Often it is not dry. It is very important that we should pay more attention to these things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South was right when he said that farmers have no sales ability. On the whole, they are weak sellers, and very often the merchants who have tried to talk up the price when farmers were willing to sell below the indicated price. I hope that it will be a function of the new Authority to provide market intelligence, and we should like to know more from the Parliamentary Secretary about what market intelligence will be available.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) mentioned research. I regard the duties of the Authority in this connection as being very important. I do not want the Authority to cut across the work being done by the Agricultural Research Council, but there are ways in which the two bodies could combine. One is in respect of the use of more soft wheat in grist; another might be in the encouraging of plant breeding, to try to produce hard wheat in this country with a good yield; a third to see whether, in the south of England, we can produce some form of maize for grain feeding. All this would be extremely valuable for agriculture.
We heard very little from the Minister about the policies of the Government in relation to commodity commissions. The Bill, which is an exercise in planning by consent, is in sharp contrast to the remarks and criticisms of the First Secretary of State as short a time ago as last June, when he said:
… we have to provide an orderly and integrated machinery for the assessment of our

requirements and possible supplies and for the marketing of those supplies … We have said that there are two ways of doing that. They are complementary. One is by setting up commodity commissions and the other is encouraging the industry to establish rather more producer boards with real marketing powers. I do not mean some of the half-baked things that pass for marketing boards these days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1051.]
The Bill and the Cereals Authority bear no resemblance whatever to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. I have always thought that no constructive thinking on agriculture was undertaken by the party opposite in 13 years; and the Bill confirms that for me. What is more, it confirms that this is a Conservative Measure. As I have already said this Session, while the Minister produces Conservative Bills he will receive our wholehearted support. I hope that he will continue to be as undogmatic with other Measures as he has proved to be over this Measure.

6.44 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I cannot claim that this is the first debate on agriculture where I have made the winding-up speech. I should like to offer my congratulations, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to those hon. Members who have made their maiden speech today. The speeches were absolutely first-class and we shall look forward to hearing both hon. Gentlemen on future occasions.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and I have crossed swords on many occasions. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench. His cherubic countenance is a great testimonial to the stability which the Labour Government must have given to agriculture if it has produced an hon. Member such as himself. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for many other reasons. Like the hon. Gentlemen who have delivered their maiden speeches today, I, also, was very friendly with their predecessors. I think that "Willie" Vane had a raw deal at the end. He was sacked within half an hour, after all he had done for agriculture.
The right hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) had a little fling. I prefer the somersault which he performed this


afternoon to his recent performance as an equestrian. At least, this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman finished up on his feet. He was trying to get away from debating the Bill into a discussion on commodity commissions, a subject on which I shall have a word or two to say. He did a complete political somersault. He has said that marketing had nothing to do with the Government, and hon. Members opposite have said, "Hear, hear". I remember very well that during a debate we had in 1961—

Mr. Soames: I have always said that, basically, it was for the industry to organise its marketing arrangements and for the Government to do all they could to help the industry. That is just what will happen under this Bill. We offered our good will and brought both sides of the industry together.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman must not seek to get out of it in that way. He has said clearly that it is not for the Government to interfere in marketing; that marketing is something for the industry to do. Of course, this is a complete denial. This Measure represents a piece of orderly marketing. We do not object. The right hon. Gentleman should face the fact that there has been a change. He has changed and we are delighted; we do not complain at all.
I was glad to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), but he was being a little naïve when he talked about a free market for all sorts of things. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these free markets do not exist. In all the agreements with which we are dealing there are limitations to free marketing. Had I known about these free markets I might not have spent weary hours in the Public Accounts Committee endeavouring to provide money to support the market. The right hon. Member for Guildford knows as well as I do that it is an exaggeration to talk about a free market.

Sir R. Nugent: rose—

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry, but we have to finish this debate by seven o'clock. I cannot give way. I have been patient—

Sir R. Nugent: rose—

Mr. Hoy: All right, I will give way.

Sir R. Nugent: The hon. Member is quite wrong. There is a free market, with certain elements of support in different places, but the basis is still a free market, by supply and demand, and the prices are worked out.

Mr. Hoy: With certain controls as well. The right hon. Gentleman knows that to be perfectly true.
I turn to the question which he asked about growers and co-operatives. Those eligible for cereal deficiency payments will, equally, be eligible for bonus payments. I understand that the co-operative associations, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, are able to get deficiency payments for their members.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is my Member of Parliament. I am aware of what he was saying about Scottish representation. I must just pay a tribute to him. He is the only Scottish Tory who has taken part in this debate.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about one sort of scheme being compulsory and the other having not so much force behind it, as in Clause 3, he is getting back to a very old Scottish argument about "may" meaning "shall" and "shall" meaning "may". It is for the Authority, if it sees fit, to direct its attention to that problem. It is not for the Government to do it; it is for the Authority to do it. I think that we should keep that clearly in mind with reference to many other things, too.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) raised the problem of the Agricultural Research Council. Of course, the Council in itself does not carry out all research work. It directs work to be done. It is for the Authority, not for the Government, to do the Clause 6 work. What the Bill does is to give power to the Authority to carry out this work. It will not be interfered with. It is for the Authority to see that the work is undertaken.
I ought to make perfectly clear at this stage the difference between the two sides of the House with regard to this Bill and a commodity commission. My right hon. Friend, I thought, explained very explicitly at the beginning of the


debate that the arrangements set up in the Bill deal with the marketing of homegrown grain only.
The right hon. Gentleman, who claims paternity of it, asked so many questions about what it all meant that I began to wonder whether he recognised his own child. He knows perfectly well that all that the Bill proposes to deal with is home-grown grain. I was interested to hear one or two hon. Members opposite asking, "What are we to do about imports?" This is a question which. I can assure them, is not new. When one goes on to deal with imports to this country, it might well be that one is approaching the establishment of a commodity commission.
When the right hon. Gentleman is claiming a lot of credit for the Bill, he might give some credit to this side of the House, because it was perhaps as a result of the continual prodding of my hon. and right hon. Friends that we have this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his advisers—and even maiden speakers and advisers to the N.F.U.—were perhaps a little afraid that they might have to deal with something different. What troubles me is that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were interested in marketing, they had 13 years to do the job. It is a little impertinent for them to come to the House when we have been in office for only eight weeks and to ask, "What are you doing about this problem?" After all, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to claim credit for the Bill, at least he should give us credit for introducing it. In 13 years they did not introduce it, but within eight weeks we are taking the first steps to putting it on the Statute Book.

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Hoy: I will not give way again to the right hon. Gentleman. I have given way enough, and I have only a few minutes in which to finish my speech.
Other questions were asked. I shall deal with them as quickly as posible, if I may. I will deal, first, with the two Clauses concerning deficiency payments and about the levy which should be made. It is true, as was said, that in Clauses 15 and 16, it can be done through the Government where deficiency payments are made. Where the deficiency payments

are made, it is easy for the Government to pay this levy to the Authority without any further facts having to be ascertained. The Government already has these facts.
The next Clause provides for supplying information to the Authority. There is no alternative but to do so, because if deficiency payments are not made levy collection has to be made in another way. Then it becomes the responsibility of the Authority to collect the levies. To do that, the Authority has to have the power to call for the information which it requires.
I should like to say one word about reserve trading powers. It is not intended that reserve trading powers should be brought into use without any reason. The right hon. Gentleman asked, "Why should we not have this Order introduced so that Parliament could discuss it?" He knows as well as I do—indeed he very nearly answered the question himself—that we might be in the position at the beginning of the season—in July or August—when Parliament was going into recess. One could not very well say to the farming community, "Would you please hold on until we come back in October, and we shall then see what we can do about it?" The Authority has to have the power to take action to deal with it at the time. Unless it has that power, this is no use at all.

Mr. Soames: Mr. Soames indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. I ask him to ask the N.F.U. if it agrees with what I am saying, or to ask any of his hon. Friends. They will agree that this is essential. In 40 days the authority would lapse if Parliament had not given approval. It is essential that Parliament have this power.
I have only one minute left.

Mr. Soames: Why?

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman just does not understand. We have to get a Financial Resolution, too.
My right hon. Friend said in his opening speech that the Authority will include nine representatives of the trade. After consultations with the interests concerned, we have it in mind that three of the nine members would be appointed


as capable of representing the interests of the merchants, two, those of the flour millers, two, those of the animal feeding-stuff manufacturers, and two, those of the malting interests. It has never been intended to have territorial representation. What we must have in representation is people who will represent every section of the industry. I do not regard Scotland as a territory in that sense. I think of it as being my native land. We have to take this into consideration.
I am sorry that I have not had the time to reply to all the points which have been raised, but I think that sufficient has been said this afternoon to prove that in eight weeks we have done a speedy job of work. I am certain that, in contrast with the 13 years which preceded it, the country will appreciate what is being done.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CEREALS MARKETING [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Home-Grown Cereals Authority, and to make provision as to the functions and finances of the Authority, it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any contribution made, in pursuance of any provision of that Act, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Authority, and
(b)the payment into the Exchequer of any sums recovered by that Minister from the Authority in pursuance of any such provision.—[Mr. Peart.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
This is a Private Bill which has been carried over from the last Parliament, and this is the first occasion on which the House has had an opportunity to consider it in this new Parliament and, indeed, under a new Government. That is one very good reason for this debate today. I hope that the Government will tell us what is their attitude towards the Bill and also towards the wider question of the facilities required for the import of iron ore into South Wales.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was courteous enough to give me some information in a letter which he wrote to me two days ago, but I think that he will admit that the information which he was able to give did not go very far. Indeed, this is the difficulty which I believe all of us in the House face over the Bill. We are being asked to judge this one project, this one of five or six ways in which the required facilities can be provided. Moreover, we are being asked to judge this one project in advance of the advice which in due course will be received from the National Ports Council. I believe that it is quite wrong to consider this one scheme when the Council will be reporting very shortly on the pros and cons of the various proposals which have been put to them.
In a debate on 9th November the Minister of Power told the House that there was need to consider as a whole the facilities for the import of iron ore into South Wales. That is what the National Ports Council is doing. Tonight, we are considering only one particular project, one way of providing the facilities which are required. I have no doubt that we shall be told that this is an enabling Bill and that it is urgent, but


it seems to me that to pass the Bill tonight is to prejudge the issue. What we are doing, as it were, is to saddle one of the horses in advance, and I strongly object to that.
After all, this is not a small project which can be passed lightly. There are major issues involved—for example, economic issues, including the expenditure of, it is estimated, £18 million on the project to build a jetty which will be 4½ miles long. The unloading wharf, which will be at right angles to the jetty, will be 1,800 ft. long and will be able to take ships as large as the "Queen Mary", 65,000 tons, or probably even more. The jetty head will be under the nose of part of Somerset which is designated in the county plan as an area of great landscape value.
I believe that the economic case for the Bill has not been made, and I further believe that it would ruin a well-preserved stretch of coastline and threaten the prosperity and the prospects of the surrounding area, in particular, in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). I am emphatically opposed to the Bill on both these counts, and so are the local authorities in my constituency which are responsible for planning and development in that area—the Portishead Urban District Council, the Long Ashton Rural District Council and the Somerset County Council.
I have no doubt that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will explain the attitude of local authorities in his constituency. In addition, there is very strong opposition from the people living in these areas. A petition objecting to the proposals in the Bill was signed by over 11,000 people. I do not believe that this strong opposition of local people and representatives can be disregarded or taken lightly.
I agree, as I am sure does the whole House, that facilities must be provided for import of iron ore into South Wales. No one would dissent from the statement that the present facilities are inadequate. I do not want to go over past history to show why this was not thought of before, but we are faced with a situation, as I readily concede, in which more adequate facilities must be provided.
The point is: what price are we to pay for these facilities? We all know the

price which we paid for development in the first Industrial Revolution. We are still removing the scars created by that revolution—the human squalor and the man-made misery which were produced by hasty decisions at that time. I hope that we have learned our lesson and that we shall not allow the same to happen today and that, in this overcrowded island, we shall not allow industrial development to take place in a part of the country where we still have a glorious natural heritage which it is our duty to preserve for coming generations.
I turn now to examine the Bill a little more closely, in particular the economic case and the threat to the amenities of the areas which I believe it presents. As I mentioned, the estimate is that the proposed project will cost about £18 million of public money. There was considerable argument in Committee about whether the cost of iron ore would be reduced. There was also considerable argument about whether there would be a saving, taking into account the capital cost and the cost of maintenance. One can at least say that the economic case was not made out. What is certainly a fact is that the less the proposed jetty is used, the less likely it is to be an economic proposition.
I understand that at present Richard Thomas & Baldwins is importing about 3 millions tons of iron ore a year. At that rate, the proposed jetty would be used for less than a quarter of the time. I understand that expansion programmes which may take place may mean that the company's future requirements, in a few years' time, will be 5 million tons. That would involve the jetty being used for about one-third of the time, still quite a small proportion, and this may explain the significance of Clause 25, which states the types of cargoes which could be imported through the jetty. The Clause refers to:
(a) raw materials for steel works in Wales or Monmouthshire; and
(b) crude oil or natural gas".
The Clause is very different from what we were led to understand when the Bill was first introduced. We were led to understand then that the jetty would be used for the imports required by Richard Thomas & Baldwins. As I say, the Clause is very much wider. It refers to imports for all the steel industries in South Wales


for iron ore and it also refers to the import of crude oil and natural gas. The petitioners had no real chance to be heard on this point during the Committee stage of the Bill, for this was introduced towards the end of the proceedings.
The significance of this is that it means, in effect, that the jetty is likely to be used very much more and to a much greater extent than was originally envisaged. I concede that there are sound economic arguments, if one is going to spend £18 million on this project, for it being used as much as possible, but, as I see it, it introduces an additional factor in regard to amenity and the effect this extra use will have on the people of my constituency and the surrounding areas.
I do not want to make a party point here because this is not a party political matter. I read in a newspaper the other day that when we see the Bill to nationalise steel it is highly likely that Richard Thomas & Baldwins will be one of the main centres, perhaps the main centre, in this country for the production of strip steel. If that is so—and I am making no complaint or party point—this surely means that the jetty will be used to a much greater extent than was originally envisaged by the Bill.
The more it is used the more economically viable it is likely to be. At the same time, the greater is the risk that the amenities of the area will be jeopardised, in particular from noise, dust and oil. I accept that an Amendment was introduced in Committee which to some extent dealt with this point. The Amendment was introduced into Clause 15(3) which reads:
… the Company shall take all practicable steps to reduce to a minimum nuisance from noise, dust and oil …
I welcome that Amendment but wonder how effective it will be. In putting this provision into effect, will the local authorities be consulted? Will they be consulted about what practicable steps should be taken to reduce to a minimum the nuisance from noise, dust and oil? This is an important point about which local authorities in the area have had some experience.
The third main point I wish to make about the Bill concerns the likely effect on the régime of the river, of the estuary. I will not go into this in detail because

it is a matter which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who hopes to enlarge on this aspect later.
My feeling about these three points on the detail of the Bill is that we face the prospect of a mammoth wharf of doubtful economic value clattering away day and night under the very nose of a residential and holiday area of great natural beauty. My main case against the Bill is that it is premature, that it asks us to prejudge the issue before the National Ports Council has reported, that the economic case for the Bill is not proved and that the price we shall pay in loss of amenity is intolerable.
I now wish to deal with the undertakings which were given by the previous Government on Second Reading, on 22nd June last. Those undertakings were of considerable interest and concern to everyone interested in this subject. One undertaking was:
… we shall take no action to implement the Bill without giving the House of Commons an opportunity to debate our proposals in the light of the recommendations of the National Ports Council when they are received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 144.]
Does that assurance still stand and, if so, am I right in thinking that it has been written into the Bill in Clause 26(2), which reads:
Any scheme to exercise any of the powers of Part II (Lands) or Part III (Works) of this Act shall be submitted to the Minister, and the Minister may make an order which shall be laid before and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that assurance still stands and whether or not I am right in thinking that the passage I quoted from the Bill represents the assurance in statutory form.
The second point to which I should like to refer from the Second Reading debate is the reference to consultation with the local authorities. This I regard as immensely important because the local authorities are justifiably sore, in my view, about the lack of consultation which has taken place on the Bill. The assurance was given by the previous Minister on 22nd June that should the Government decide that this scheme should go forward
… we shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to arrange for further consultations with the local authorities who believe


that they would be adversely affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 144.]
Does that assurance still stand, and, if it does, may I ask for a little more information about the meaning of the phrase "further consultations"?
There are two points here. First, the comparatively narrow point, namely, the planning control over the design and external appearance, the means of access and the siting within the limits of deviation of the jetty itself. That was made fairly clear in the proceedings in the Select Committee in which the representative from the Ministery of Housing and Local Government stated, on page 7 of day 14 of the proceedings:
The Minister of Housing's Report makes it clear that if the works in the Bill are approved the Minister will bring under planing control the design, and external appearance of the jetty, as well as the other matters mentioned in paragraph 3 of his Report.
The other matters referred to were those to which I have referred, namely, the means of access and the siting within the limits of deviation.
The Minister's representative went on to say:
Any application for planning permission will be subject to ministerial decision. A local inquiry will be held at which any local authority, the company, of course, and, indeed, any other interested person or body will be free to state their views on the matter under inquiry.
That seems fairly clear on the comparatively narrow point of the design. I regard this as a narrow point which does not amount to very much more than whether this jetty is to be painted red, white, blue or yellow.
However that may be, it seems to be clear on that particular planning point, but there is one point which is not clear, and I should be glad if the Minister could elucidate it. That is whether the Somerset local authorities will have some say in this matter. Planningwise, the proposed jetty would come under the jurisdiction of the Monmouthshire County Council and the Bristol County Council. It does not come under the jurisdiction of the Somerset County Council or the other Somerset planning authorities as well. I should like to know whether on this point the Somerset local authorities will be consulted.
The second point on planning—and this is a much more important one—is what further consultation will take place with the planning authorities, including the planning authorities in Somerset. I ask this in particular reference to a remark which was made, again by the representative of the Ministry of Housing and local Government in the Minutes of Evidence, on day 14, in which he stated:
If Parliament should approve this Bill and if the Government should approve this scheme planning consent in principle would have been given. In other words, only these important details—that is the details of design and so on to which I have been referring—would remain.
That makes me wonder what these additional consultations involve. This is an extremely important point so far as we are concerned. Does it mean that all that will happen is that the local planning authorities, including those in Somerset, are merely to have a polite talk with the Ministry as a sort of act of grace? Is that intended to fulfil the pledge? If it is, I say emphatically that in my view it is not good enough; or is it, in fact, intended that the Somerset local authorities will be consulted as planning authorities and that they will be able to exercise their rights and duties in this matter as planning authorities—duties which, after all, would have been their right had this proposed development taken place on land rather than in the Severn Estuary?
I cannot clearly develop this gap, as it seems to me, in our planning law tonight, but this whole business has put the local authorities in Somerset in an intolerable position. They rightly complain of lack of consultation. They had an extremely difficult job to do already. They are trying to plan a development of a county which is growing fast in population. They are trying, at the same time, to preserve a beautiful stretch of coastline and some glorious country. This is a very difficult job which Parliament has put upon them. They are making an extremely good job of doing it. But if development is to take place without any adequate consultation with them, development which is not on land but just out in the estuary, how can they possibly be expected to carry out the onerous task which Parliament has placed upon them?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): It might help the House if I said that I saw the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and gave the assurance that before any scheme of this kind is carried out the local authorities will be consulted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That assurance, as given by the last Government, we have definitely renewed, and before any scheme of this kind is carried out we give the assurance that there will be a debate in this House on the recommendation of the National Ports Council.
I feel sure that this should allay the anxieties which the hon. Member is putting forward. It must be a debate in this House, when we receive the recommendations of the National Ports Council on this issue. We certainly renew the assurance that the local authorities concerned will be consulted by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government before any scheme is confirmed.

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and also for the help he has given to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. I referred to that matter probably just before the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, but I am very glad to have that assurance. However, it would be most helpful if he could say a little more about precisely what the assurance involves.
What I am getting at is whether the local authorities are to be consulted as planning authorities, by which I mean—I think that the Parliamentary Secretary said, "Of course", but does that mean that the planning procedures that would normally be followed were this a development on land—local public inquiry, should there be objections, and the rest—will be gone through? There is a very great difference between a polite consultation with the local authorities—"What do you feel about this thing?"—and their having the same rights and duties as they would have were the development on land. That is the point I am driving at. If the hon. Gentleman could say a little more on it, it would be extremely helpful to my hon. Friend and myself.
There are the particular duties which the local authorities in my constituency have with regard to the protection of the coastline. Circular No. 56, dated 2nd December, 1963, was issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to local authorities, and very considerably emphasised the duty of local authorities to protect the coastline.
The document states:
I am directed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to draw the attention of local planning authorities with coastal boundaries to the need to give increasing attention to the problem of coastal development.
The coast attracts constantly growing numbers of people for holidays and for weekend recreation. The same is true of retirement. The 1961 census reveals a striking increase in the number of people living in the coastal districts and this is particularly notable on the south coast.
It could well have spoken of the southwest coast as well:
It is most important in making provision for these needs that the development permitted should not spoil the very things which gives the coastline its charm and attraction.
I readily concede that the circular went on to say that there might be certain parts of the coast, including certain estuaries, where proposals for large-scale development might be difficult to resist. None the less, this does not alter the very clear and impelling message put across in the circular, which continues:
… because the coast is of exceptional value and subject to heavy pressures for development the Minister considers that it merits special study and control. He therefore asks authorities with coastal boundaries to make a special study of their coastal areas…".
The local authorities having done that:
This study and consultation may conveniently in some cases form part of the quinquennial review of the development plan. In all cases, however, the policy emerging should be incorporated in the development plan, as soon as practicable.
That is precisely what the Somerset local authorities have been doing.
Already in its existing development plan the Somerset County Council has a substantial area of the coast, including the part that we are now considering in the immediate vicinity of the jetty. It is already designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. In the revision of the development plan—which, I believe, has now been submitted to the


Ministry of Housing and Local Government—it is proposed to extend the area which comes under this designation.
So we have the Somerset local authorities carrying out with enthusiasm the spirit and the letter of this circular. To say the least, it is immensely discouraging for them if, while they are trying to do this, they are not to have a very real say in what shall take place actually on the sea and which will have a fundamental effect upon their efforts to carry out the spirit and the letter of the circular.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances about that particularly important planning aspect, and some details as to precisely what these further consultations will involve; whether they will really bring the local planning authorities fully into the picture and enable them to have as effective a say in this development as they now have when the development takes place on land.
We are told that this Bill is urgent. We all recognise that the sooner the right facilities for the importation of iron ore can be provided the better but, if it is so urgent, I wonder whether any preliminary consultations on the planning points have already taken place? If they have not, it does not suggest to me that, in the Government's view, this project, or other possible projects, is as urgent as all that. Have these consultations already begun? Have there been any preliminary discussions between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities concerned?
Urgency is an argument easily and often used, but if it is to be at the expense of the right decision it certainly does not carry conviction. I hope that I have put forward a reasonable case, and I apologise for keeping the House so long. It is a case in which I deeply believe, and one which, if necessary, I am prepared to take to the Division Lobby.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: As I was Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill, I do not think that I ought to say very much, but before the House comes to a decision there are one or two points which ought to be borne in mind.
It is certainly not my intention to answer in detail the very long speech made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), but the House should know that the Bill has been considered in detail by another place, that it came to this House and was given a Second Reading on the advice of the then Minister of Transport and went upstairs to a Committee.
We spent about 30 sittings listening to counsel for the promoters and for the petitioners. I failed to understand the remark of the hon. Member that local authorities did not have a proper opportunity to put their case. If he had been present at that meeting he would not have thought that any counsel was inhibited in any way from making very long speeches on every point.
The House should realise that if the Bill is passed it will not necessarily follow that this will be the scheme which will be adopted for the import of iron ore into South Wales, but, if the Bill is not passed, it would be to the detriment of the area represented by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). In giving our judgment on the Bill we imposed certain conditions. I have heard it argued that those conditions have not yet been carried out, but those concerned would have been very foolish if they had attempted to carry them out before this House gave general approval for it would have looked as if they were anticipating a decision by this House.
One of the conditions already made by North Somerset was about nuisance from noise, dust, and so on. Another we imposed was that a model should be made of the estuary so as to be quite certain about the effects of the tide on that area if a construction of this size and nature was built out into the estuary.
If the House does not give the Third Reading to the Bill there is no reason to doubt that the National Ports Council may not decide that this is the scheme it wants for the import of ore to South Wales, in which case if it makes that recommendation to the Minister the Minister will come to the House and the conditions which we imposed in Committee will not be operative. If the House gives the Bill a passage on Third Reading, then, if the Ports Council decides that this


is the best scheme, it could be put quickly into operation.
In view of the conditions we imposed because we considered that they were to the advantage of Somerset and Westonsuper-Mare, the House would be well advised to bear these matters in mind and to allow the Bill to go through. That is all I wanted to say, but I thought it important that these considerations should be brought before the House before a decision is made.

7.44 p.m.

Sir William Robson Brown: I rise to speak in support of the Bill which I believe important as a matter of industrial economy and efficiency for the country. That is what we are debating. The purpose of the Bill is to enable a jetty to be built into the channel to enable the Richard Thomas & Baldwins works at Newport to discharge iron ore from boats of 64,000 tons. I should be prepared to prophesy that even that tonnage will be exceeded as years go by.
At the moment Richard Thomas & Baldwins has to bring iron ore by ore carriers of about 25,000 tons capacity and take it by rail from Newport. The firm has considered the project in every conceivable way actuarially and from an economic point of view and has come to the conclusion that the expenditure of £18 million is necessary, wise and economic. The firm would have been crazy to have become involved in expenditure such as this if it were not satisfied that ultimately the country will need a project of this kind.
At the same time, we must not say that industrial requirements should tread on the faces of local authorities, on local feelings and the amenities of the Somerset coast. I feel satisfied that at the end of all this the Minister with his advisers will take full care that these interests are protected. In the end there will be the benefit of the jetty and all that it can contribute without interfering unnecessarily with the amenities of that beautiful coast.
I quite understand the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North
(Mr. Dean) on behalf of his constituents. That is his duty and he has performed it very well indeed, but, as he said this is the first project embarked upon, I must inform him that a project has already been agreed

by the Steel Company of Wales in the Port Talbot area and the project we are discussing will be the second of the kind. There may be others to follow.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who was Chairman of the Committee, made quite clear that ample opportunity was given, and will be given, for the proper and reasonable interests of local authorities to be stated. We have to face this situation in the light of the economic position of the nation. This project has been discussed in this House for several years and so far no progress has been made. As one who has been associated with steel all my life, I think that if we can give the project a fair wind, subject to the provisos I have made, we shall be doing a wise thing. The capacity of the works of Richard Thomas & Baldwins at Newport is huge enough in all conscience, but I forecast that the tonnage production of steel in sheet form—which is one of the finest ways of exporting steel—will rise steadily all the time.
I notice that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is present. He must be equally concerned about this matter, because he knows that iron ore not only goes to the Newport works but also to the Ebbw Vale works. Any custom which can be got for Ebbw Vale will be of value in continuing employment there, as I know from previous experience. I hope that this Bill will go through without a Division, because sufficient assurance has been given about it. We have the assurance of a public local inquiry within the normal framework of planning procedure.
Approaches have been made by the Richard Thomas & Baldwins Company to Weston-super-Mare in regard to its problems. The company's consultant engineer, Mr. Richard Pavry, a partner of Messrs. Posford, Pavry and Partners, maintained in his evidence his view that there is no risk. A consultant was also brought in and the objection was met by the Select Committee which drafted an amendment to Clause 26, which requires that the company should, in conjunction with Weston-super-Mare, carry out such tests as may be agreed between them or, in default of agreement, be determined by the Ministry of Transport to ascertain


what effect, if any, the jetty and wharf-head is likely to have upon the régime of the Bristol Channel and, in particular, of Weston Bay.

Mr. David Webster: Was that expert decision given before the drilling rig collapsed because of the instability of the régime in the Channel?

Sir W. Robson Brown: That is a fine technical point about which, as my hon. Friend knows full well, I am not informed. In any case, we are in a position to see tests carried out and we are invited to take part in these tests. If there is no agreement, the Ministry of Transport can make a decision.

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend said that there was an assurance with regard to a local public inquiry. As I understand the position at the moment, subject to anything the Minister may say, the only assurance we have is that there will be a local public inquiry with regard to the design. This is a very narrow point. We have not an assurance with regard to a local public inquiry on the principle.

Sir W. Robson Brown: I will not venture to answer on behalf of the Minister. I am sure that he will give the hon. Gentleman his views at the end of the debate.
Those who are close to the matter know full well that the wharfhead will come under the jurisdiction of the Port of Bristol Authority the British Transport Docks Board, which owns the docks at Newport, and Newport Corporation have withdrawn or not maintained their own objections to the Bill. The company has consulted the Port of Bristol Authority, which does not object to it and will be willing to co-operate in the implementing of the schemes.
Finally, all these plans, whatever they may be, must go before the new docks authority for final approval. The situation at the moment is that, if the company can resolve its difficulties with the various authorities and if the Bill goes through, it may have gained a couple of years, whereas if it merely sits quiet and says, "We had better wait until the authority has examined all the projects all over South Wales", years can go by.

I commend Richard Thomas & Baldwins for its persistence in this matter, and I hope the Bill receives the full support of the House tonight.

7.53 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): May I intervene at this stage, although I do not wish to cut the debate short by asking the House to arrive at a conclusion now? We are in the position of awaiting the report of the National Ports Council on the merits or demerits of the scheme. It is clear that we have to do something about iron ore imports into South Wales. I do not think that anybody here or outside would dispute that. A variety of schemes have been suggested. They were considered by our predecessors and it was decided to refer the matter to the National Ports Council.
I appreciate the anxieties which have been expressed by the hon. Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who came to see me. We discussed the problem. I am here tonight to renew the assurances which were given previously that, whatever the recommendations of the Council may be, there will be a debate in the House on those recommendations and there will be consultations on the recommendations between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities, which I know may be affected from the point of view of amenity and in other respects.
We can say no more than that now. It would be wrong for the House to prejudge the issue. A Bill has already been passed concerning another line of development for the solution of the problem. The powers have been given. We are very concerned in the Department about the extraordinary delays which occur if legislative powers are not made available. If a scheme is agreed upon, and it is viable and necessary for the economic development of the country, we want the powers to be available to put the scheme into effect as soon as possible, I am sure that hon. Members who object in this case would agree that that is absolutely necessary.
The Ministry is not promoting the Bill. We are simply saying, "Let us have these powers available because we expect, in a few weeks—in January, 1965—to have


the recommendations of the National Ports Council on the various schemes which have been suggested for developing iron ore imports into South Wales". This is a matter which is vitally important for the country's future economy. This will involve a tremendous amount of development. It may involve treading on some people's corns. It may cause some unpopularity.
But I give the assurance that before any scheme of this kind is considered there will be consultations with the local planning authorities about the amenity aspects of the scheme. I give the further assurance, in confirmation of what was done by our predecessors, that there will be a full debate in the House on the recommendations of the Council. I would only hope that, in the light of these assurances, hon. Members will allow the Bill to be passed.

Mr. Dean: I am grateful for the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary has given. Could he say a little more about what the consultations will amount to? Will the normal planning procedure be put into operation in the consultations with the local planning authorities? It would be most helpful if the hon. Gentleman could say a little more on that.

Mr. Swingler: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "the normal planning procedure". We have given the assurance that, if the scheme for which powers are asked in the Bill is recommended by the Council, the Minister of Housing and Local Government will then have consultations with all local authorities concerned to get their views on the amenity aspects, and that will precede a debate in the House on the recommendations of the Council.
The hon. Member's interests are completely safeguarded. First, the local authorities will have the opportunity of expressing their views. There will then be the opportunity in the House to express views on the recommendations of the Council before the Government proceed further.

Mr. Enoch Powell: When the hon. Gentleman refers to a debate in the House on the recommendations of the National Ports Council, does that mean a debate on the affirmative Resolution under Clause 26(2) of the Bill, or a separate occasion altogether?

Mr. Swingler: Assurances have previously been given that there would be a debate on the recommendations of the National Ports Council and I am reaffirming the decision of my predecessors that before any decision is taken there will be a debate in the House on the recommendations of the Council.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) made a carefully reasoned speech in defence of a perfectly legitimate constituency interest and put a number of pertinent points to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in particular the point about the import of crude oil which, perhaps, has come as a surprise to those of us who have taken an interest in this matter and on which my hon. Friend is entitled to at least a comment. Nevertheless, I was surprised particularly at two remarks which my hon. Friend made when he called into question the economic value of this scheme—he said it was of doubtful economic value—and when he questioned the urgency of it.
I believe that the future competitive power of the iron and steel industry is at stake in the Bill to some degree, and that we cannot at this hour, or indeed any other, regard the competitive power of that industry as neither urgent nor of economic value. My original interest in the Bill, as I explained on Second Reading, stemmed from a completely different business complex involving the freight charges on imported iron ore, which struck me as inordinately high. The more I went into it the more convinced I became of the need for deeper ports—at least one if not two in the South Wales area. The reason for this is perfectly plain and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson-Brown) has explained it. Large ore-carriers are absolutely vital because of the lower operating costs at sea and the lower capital cost per ton carried.
Only a decade ago carriers were of the order of 20,000 to 30,000 tons. Now they are 65,000 tons and are rapidly rising to anything up to 100,000 tons in future. The greatest economies are over the longest distances and it is important to realise that the distances over which we are importing ores into this country have increased steadily since 1946.
The largest laden ore-carrier discharged so far is one of 33,000 tons at Tyne Dock. This compares interestingly with carriers operated by our competitors. In Italy there are four ports with a capacity for 45,000 ton carriers. In Germany there is one port of 30,000 tons capacity and one of 40,000 tons. In France there is one of 45,000 tons, in Holland one of 55,000 tons, one of 30,000 tons and one of 45,000 tons, and in Belgium 45,000 ton ore-carriers can discharge. This is a real and important contrast when my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North questions the economic value. An ore-carrier of 23,000 tons is about the limit for Bristol now on all tides, although people there claim that 30,000 tons might be possible on a high tide. This is at a cost of 20s. per ton. If one could get a 60,000-ton carrier there the cost per ton would be reduced to 14s. This seems to me to be a fact of considerable significance to the economy of the whole country.
The position of the Spencer Works is very relevant to this debate. The company gave a Press conference a week or two ago where it was explained that it had expansion plans now which could meet double the demand for the company's present output, but the company could not possibly achieve this unless it could increase its input very considerably. This would not be possible without the advent of large ore-carriers of the type which could come to this jetty in the Bristol Channel.
I should like to put some points on the objections which have been brought forward in Committee, and two in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), because the question of sewage is rather more his constituency interest than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North. There was talk, and I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare who mentioned this, of a model, which was necessary to judge the effect. The corporation produced this in Committee.
I believe that it was as a result of this that it was written into Clause 26 in Part IV of the Bill that
… the Company shall in conjunction with the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the borough of Weston-super-Mare … carry out such tests, including the construction and operation of models as may be agreed between

the corporation and the Company or in default of agreement as may be determined by the Minister to ascertain what effect (if any) the construction and operation of the authorised works is likely to have …
This was a gain for the corporation.
As a result it consulted, together with the consultants to the company, Mr. Allen who produced the original report, about the necessary tests. I think that Mr. Allen said that he did not, first of all, believe that tests would be necessary but that if they were the first step should be a survey generally of the currents and the effect upon sewage at the moment. The cost was reckoned to be between £5,000 and £10,000.
I understand that the corporation then said that it would be unreasonable for it to incur half the cost, which by the Bill it would be required to do, since the Bill might not go through. Subsequently, Richard Thomas & Baldwins offered to defray the entire cost, but despite this there has as yet been no agreement from the corporation that this test should be undertaken. If I am right in what I am saying, I put it seriously to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that the corporation is on rather weak ground in a matter of considerable importance to the country as a whole.

Mr. Webster: I understood that discussions were in train. I did not understand that the corporation had declined to agree. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having clarified that point.

Mr. Hastings: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reception of that information, which I hope is accurate. I understand it to be so, but he will have means of checking it very rapidly after this debate.
We are talking about a jetty 12 miles upstream from the area which it is claimed might be affected. It would be a perfectly reasonable engineering thesis that in order to affect currents of the power involved in this Channel one would have to put massive works down either opposite the beach involved or downstream of it, but 12 miles upstream seems to me, on the face of it, a rather unreasonable worry.
Finally, I should like to echo what the Minister has already said—that what we are considering are alternatives between four separate schemes. We are not pronouncing finally in any way on Bristol


Deep. The alternatives were Newport, where the authorities are neither willing nor able to carry out the necessary alterations, Cardiff where we have no real estimate of the cost involved and where there is also opposition to operations there. Port Talbot, for which there has already been enabling legislation and, finally, Bristol Deep, which is the subject of tonight's Bill.
In the general context of the competitive power of the steel industry, which is vital to the country, the House should allow the Bill to go forward so that the National Ports Council at least will have the chance to consider it. That Council was set up by this House in 1963 precisely for this sort of objective and it would be wrong if it was denied the chance to consider the scheme.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Nobody should be surprised that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) should have raised this question. He represents in this House an extremely beautiful part of the country. I happened to pay a visit there in the early days of October for the purpose of ensuring that the hon. Member never got here. Unfortunately, that mission was not successful, but I hope to repeat it in the future.
Certainly anyone representing such a beautiful place as North Somerset would be eager to ensure that every possible precaution was taken to see that its beauty was protected. Therefore, nobody should complain about the hon. Member's making representations, even if they have been made at considerable length by his predecessor. Indeed, after the marathon performance of his predecessor, it would have been regarded as delinquency on the hon. Member's part if he had not come along to say something much more briefly today. We have, therefore, no complaint that the hon. Member has raised the matter.
It is, however, only right that we should be fair also to the company whose Bill is being presented. Suggestions were made in the Second Reading debate that Richard Thomas & Baldwins had in some way behaved improperly, hastily or precipitately. I am very glad that such accusations have not been repeated in this debate, because the company was doing

its duty, just as the hon. Member was doing his. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) for what he has said in these matters. What he has said will be well accepted by those who work in Ebbw Vale and even by those who work in what we in Ebbw Vale regard as the minor branch works of the business at Llanwern. They will both be grateful for the fact that their views should also be represented in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who was Chairman of the Committee, has, however, made it clear that all these questions which have been raised in this debate, and, indeed, all the questions that were raised in Second Reading, have been examined in the utmost minuteness and with the most exhaustive care, not merely by a Select Committee of this House but also previously by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. Therefore, nobody could possibly suggest that this measure is in some way being rushed through without all these questions being taken into account. It is the very opposite procedure to that. We know that in the Committee which has now examined the matter one main Amendment was carried. This has been referred to both by my hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee and by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings).
As I understand the position on the tests that were to be carried out, the position is that since the Clause was inserted in the Bill the Director of the Hydraulics Research Station of the D.S.I.R. has, at the suggestion of the company, met the advisers of the borough council and the company offered to arrange for the immediate carrying out of the preliminary field works in Weston Bay before advising on the tests that he considers appropriate to settle the matter. This was welcomed by the company, which still waits to hear whether the offer has been accepted by the borough council. There, again, it is quite evident that the company—Richard Thomas & Baldwins—was taking every step which it was required to take and which it was prompted to take by the discussions which went on in the Select Committee. In that direction also no complaint can be made against the company.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has repeated quite clearly from the Front Bench the assurances which have been given about the consultation which will take place with the councils. He has also repeated again that we are to have a debate in this House on the Report of the National Ports Council. It would be impossible, therefore, to have more safeguards piled one upon another to deal with this situation.
One of the safeguards is a debate of this nature. Therefore, it is quite proper that hon. Members should raise the matter. The matter has, however, been most meticulously examined, and on the question of amenities the evidence should satisfy anybody who looks at it, as the previous spokesman for the Ministry of Transport did on Second Reading. He certainly was not convinced by what was said by hon. Members representing that part of the country that the amenities would be badly affected.
What the former Parliamentary Secretary was able to show with complete conviction in the last debate on this matter was that the facts had been gravely misrepresented in some parts of Somerset and that the newspapers there had portrayed what would happen in the most scarifying terms. What he sought to do in that last debate was to put the matter in proper perspective, but he also said that the matter would be further examined by a whole fresh series of experts. That is what has happened between the last debate on this matter and the present one. Therefore, one could hardly imagine any subject which has been more carefully scrutinised than this has been.
Secondly, no blame whatever attaches to the company in this matter. I am glad that the accusations that were made against the company in the last debate by the previous hon. Member for Somerset, North have not been repeated by the present hon. Member for Somerset, North tonight.
Thirdly, and most important of all, the House of Commons must learn from this procedure. If we are to take as long to deal with all such matters as this as we have had to do with the Bill we can forget anything about the modernisation of

Britain. This was a project which was strongly backed by probably the best steel man in the country, Sir Henry Spencer. Whilst he was proceeding with plans for the building of Llanwern, the most up-to-date steelworks in the country, he was also thinking ahead in terms of how he would provide and feed his steel industry with proper imports. That was years ago. Had he had his way, the country, and the whole of South Wales, would have been much better equipped much earlier.
Therefore, we in this House have some responsibility. We have Private Bills and we have this hopeless, archaic procedure. What the company of Richard Thomas & Baldwins has been trying to do in the face of great difficulties and, no doubt, at considerable expense is to overcome many of the delays and obstacles of the procedure and to try to get the Bill through in time, so that if eventually the National Ports Council comes to a decision, and after we have had further debate on the matter, there will not be a long series of months or years of delay afterwards. That is what we are asking for. Therefore, the House of Commons and the Government have some responsibility.
I hope that no hon. Member who dares to vote against the Bill will talk about the modernisation of Britain. I hope that nobody who held up the Bill would talk about his desire to see the steel industry being adventurous. It so happens that the most adventurous part of the steel industry is a publicly-owned section of it. Some of us on this side of the House do not find that surprising. We do not find it surprising that the most up-to-date steelworks in the country is publicly owned or that that company also has led the way in proposing plans for improving the import of steel.

Mr. Hastings: If the hon. Member really believes that, would he like to make comparison between the profits and losses of this company and of the other companies in the industry?

Mr. Foot: Profits and losses are not always the test of which company in an industry is the most efficient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. We are getting a long way from the Question.

Mr. Foot: If I may say so, Sir Samuel, you should have thought of that when


the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire interrupted. It may be that the word "profits" did not grate on your ears when it came from the other side of the House, as it did when it came from this, although I am not making any charge against your impartiality on those grounds.
However, it is a notable fact that the hon. Gentleman who interrupted and claims to be such an expert about the steel industry has not yet woken up to the fact that the biggest contribution to the steel production of this country—because I cannot mention the word "profits"—is being made by a company which is publicly owned and that that same company has shown great foresight not merely in preparing the plans for this scheme but also in trying to circumvent the appalling, labyrinthine procedure of the House of Commons. Some of those acting for the company who had to go to listen for tedious hours in the House of Lords and tedious hours before the Select Committee, and even the tedious hours we have had here tonight, must be wondering whether in fact the representatives of the people of this country really do want to modernise the country or not.
So I hope that when we carry this Bill tonight we shall do it not with an even larger majority than we had for a proposition last night but with an overwhelming majority so as to make it clear that the House of Commons regards with respect the foresight and enterprise and energy which this company has shown in trying to tackle the nation's problem, and respect for the way in which it has done it.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: One of the unique things about tonight's debate is that we have had harmony between both sides of the steel industry. We have had my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in an axis in full function. It was quite interesting to see this jolly bonhomie between both sides.

Mr. Michael Foot: Take note of it.

Mr. Webster: I should like to express my thanks to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his great courtesy to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) for renewing the assurances which have been very thoroughly gone into tonight by my hon. Friend. I should also give my thanks to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, who also did the same thing although he was a little brusque with us, as we perhaps deserved on Second Reading; but he went to Cleveland and to Portishead to see for himself the situation.
I should also like to express my sincere thanks to the members of the Select Committee and to its Chairman, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who is here and who intervened in the debate. I was grateful to him for that, and also my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). It is thanks to them that there is now Clause 26, which goes a great way to allay the anxieties I expressed on Second Reading and which I do not wish to express at any great length tonight.
I do not thank them for Clause 25. There was, I believe, on Second Reading, a tacit assurance that this was only to be a jetty for the import of iron ore and the materials of the steel works. Now I see that it is for oil and natural gas. This makes a new set of circumstances which make it important that I raise this matter tonight.
I think that the procedure which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale has attacked as the labyrinthine procedure is far better for Private Bills than what we have today under the Harbours Act, to Section 27 of which I moved Amendments, which had a good deal of support from both sides of the Standing Committee on the Bill, concerning the special Parliamentary procedure which is less a safeguard than the Private Bill procedure as it exists today. Under the special Parliamentary procedure we should have 14 days for objecting only, and instead of the Select Committee procedure as we have it now we should have a joint Committee, and the onus of proof would not be on the promotors but on


those objecting. So I prefer this procedure and I propose to take the fullest advantage of it.
I am uncertain whether the Instruction passed by this House to the Select Committee made much difference, because that Instruction occurred almost as a photo finish with the decision of the Committee on its findings, but I am certain that I am being utterly consistent in my opposition to the method in which the Bill was brought in, and I plead in aid the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, speaking on another Measure of this nature, regarding Port Talbot, on 28th April, asked, "Is there to be one terminal for the whole of South Wales? Are there to be two? Are there to be three? Is there to be one for each works, or are there to be groupings of two or three?"
These things are very relevant because we have seen slipped into the Bill Amendments which, although I will not say they were unnoticed, perhaps surprised some of my hon. Friends, such as the one about providing for crude oil and natural gas. I think that astonished them. I must not quote further what they said to me privately.
I should like Amendments to make the structure a more solid one and with proper regard for the Severn Estuary. I shall have a great deal to say about that in due course. I expressed some of my anxieties on Second Reading, and, first, as to how the structure would affect the Severn Estuary, where the tidal flow is about eight or nine knots and the rise and fall is of a very considerable height. It is the second highest tidal rise and fall in the whole world, second to that in the Bay of Fundy. This is causing anxiety in Weston-super-Mare, primarily that the current will eventually possibly erode a good deal of our beach. It may be said by some people that we have too big a beach already, but the fear is that it may become too small a beach eventually.
Secondly, the anxiety is that there may be a circular motion of the current which would bring sewage to the beach. Ever since my Second Reading speech, when I talked about this, some Welsh Members called me "Weston sewage". However, if these fears were proved to be substantial it would mean the com-

plete ruin of the economy of my constituents, and it is for that reason that it is my duty to raise this matter tonight.
What has happened since Second Reading? The then Parliamentary Secretary said that he believed in the experts. He said that the Minister's view was shared by the leading authorities in the country on these matters. They did not convince the Committee in another place. He went on to say that it was his experience that these experts had a habit of being right. Then Mr. Fisher, leading counsel for the promoters, is recorded on the thirteenth day of the Committee's proceedings—it sounds a bit like the Old Testament, this thirteenth day of business—as talking about the one thing which was agreed by all witnesses was that the work proposed for the jetty was of remarkable stability. This is the unanimous view of the experts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher has disappeared, rather like the drilling rig which they put in this area of remarkable stability. I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. He has now emerged, which is more than the drill ever did.
I was interested to see that after the Second Reading, and while the Bill was under consideration by the Select Committee, the drilling rig took a number of test borings, but not in the area of the Bristol Deeps, where the main head of the jetty was to be, and it is this factor of instability which is my main objection to the Bill.
It was interesting to note that the first time they put a jetty in this area in the Bristol Deeps it began to cause scouring of the sand. The sand was then removed. Two of the legs began to wobble, and that again caused more scouring of the sand until eventually, having dislodged 6 ft. of sand, it went through the soft marl and bent and collapsed. It was done with the most superb timing. Sir Edwin Leather, the then Member for Somerset, North, was not seen for some time, and I thought that he had done a good job of sabotage. It was beautifully timed, and coincided with the Committee saying that it must have a model, and writing in Clause 26, for which I am grateful.
It is said, and it has come out on the Floor of the House today, although I was not given notice of it, that Weston had


been obstructive in this matter. If that is so, I shall find out. I met the Town Clerk yesterday. He is a man of remarkable frankness. He said that the company was forthcoming about the experiment. On the other hand, this was the first time that a drilling rig had appeared in the Bristol Deeps, and it was proved that the scouring caused the collapse. Never again was a drilling rig put in the centre of the Deeps.

Mr. Blackburn: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the examination of the witnesses at that time about the rig before he makes comments of that kind.

Mr. Webster: I should like a more considered examination of these witnesses, because I think that I am right in saying that this was done within 48 hours—and certainly no more than three days—of the collapse of the jetty. It was still in such an unsafe condition that no diver could be sent down. I think that we have yet to have evidence that a diver was sent down to examine what had happened, so we are going on the hypothesis of what these experts will prove.

Mr. Blackburn: There is no connection between the size of the rig and the depth to which the pillars for the jetty would be sunk. Therefore, that is not a good example of what might happen.

Mr. Webster: In that case, a smaller rig has had the effect of scouring so much sand away. Heaven help Weston-super-Mare if a more substantial jetty caused deeper scouring and erosion of the Bristol Deeps.
The fact there was never again a drilling rig is about as eloquent as the situation of Sherlock Holmes in the story "Silver Baze", when it is said, "Is there any point to which you wish to draw my attention in the curious incident of the dog in the middle of the night?". The dog did nothing in the middle of the night. That is the curious incident. The drilling rig was never again used. A drilling rig was not employed in the area that we are discussing because of the great doubt that existed.
The second development is the inclusion of crude oil and natural gas. This is very surprising. Many of us were under the impression that this jetty would be used solely for material to be

used by the Steel Company of Wales and I think that the inclusion of crude oil and natural gas has surprised even a number of supporters of the Measure.
When one sees the development of greater concentration into the South Wales area, and the development of super tankers—and I see from the newspapers this week that they can be of 200,000 tons, or even 250,000 tons—one realises that this is not just a parochial matter, but a matter which the House of Commons should consider, because, if these developments took place, the Bristol Deeps could be used for only two hours at each peak tide because of the possibility of obstruction of the fairway into the Port of Bristol and the projected port project put forward by the Port of Bristol.
If we are to have oil tankers discharging, we may eventually have a refinery. We welcome this development, and also the possibility of tankers discharging natural gas there, but we think that this is something about which the Committee will want to think further, because it will have a great effect on the main fairway into the Port of Bristol.
This is the main substance of my argument against the Bill. It is not, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale says, that there has been nothing doing since the very thorough review the Bill was given in the Select Committee; on the contrary, there have been developments which have shown quite clearly that the Bill is worthy of rejection, and I hope that the House will join me in seeking to reject it.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I do not wish to delay the House, but it so happens that the steelworks which we are discussing at Llanwern, where the jetty is to be built, is in the centre of my constituency. It is in my capacity as the Member for Monmouth that I wish to make one or two observations. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been made.
The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) put their cases with complete restraint and balance. No accusations were made against the company, or


anything of that kind, and the House appreciated that. The points that my hon. Friends made were quite proper ones for Members representing their constituencies and expressing concern about the amenities of one of the loveliest counties—perhaps second only to Monmouthshire in its beauty. The serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare about the possibility of silting will have to be considered.
But the House has other interests to balance and consider. One is the future of this great steelworks. I shall not enter into questions of ownership, but we can all be proud of this steelworks. It is not only one of the greatest steelworks in this country; it is one of the greatest in Europe. On its efficiency and its ability to turn out steel which is competitive not simply with the steel of other British steelworks but with any steel in the world the modernisation of this country in the future must to some extent depend.
This is not a party matter. We must back the company up in anything which it can do, prudently and carefully, and after full consideration, to ensure that its iron ore, which is its raw material, is imported on competitive terms. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) about that.
It is necessary that urgent action should be taken in this matter. I am not concerned to enter into a debate about the procedures of the House of Commons. It is said that the mills of God grind slowly. I am sure that the House will agree that the rules of our procedure, in allowing us to reach a decision on matters such as this, certainly do not grind very fast. I am not complaining about that. It is right that every point of view should be heard. But no one—and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) knows this—could say that we were rushing a decision in this case. We have gone through the matter with a toothcomb. Every conceivable point has been examined and re-examined.
Even tonight we are not coming to a decision: Heaven forbid! We are not getting anywhere near that. As the

Parliamentary Secretary said, the most that we are doing is getting to a point at which we are saying, "We could make a decision if we were really forced to, after the various inquiries have been completed". I would remind my hon. Friends that we are not voting on the question whether or not this jetty should be built; all that we are saying is, "If, in due course, we wish to build this jetty, should power be given to do so?" I should have thought that that was an exceedingly modest request. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, "We must modernise". To suggest that we should do all this in six months' time does not indicate that sense of urgency which I feel that my hon. Friends have in their hearts in respect of this matter.
Nevertheless, I know that the points which have been put will be considered in every detail. I am not in any way dismissing the seriousness of those points. All I hope is that the House, when it comes to its conclusion on these matters, will recognise that this Government have repeated in every detail the pledges given by their predecessors about inquiries and the matters which will be inquired into and the tests which have to be carried out. They have not wasted their time. Condition after condition has been built into this. All the considerations will be incorporated in the Bill, and they have been re-emphasised by the Parliamentary Secretary. In those circumstances, I hope very much that the House may get on with this matter and give to this great company the power and authority to which I think it is entitled.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: If I may have permission to speak again, I wish to respond to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I wish to repeat and to spell out quite clearly the two assurances which we have given and after I have done so, I hope that we may avoid voting on this matter.
We say quite clearly, on the basis of these proposals, that we await the report of the National Ports Council about what is most advisable over development in ports in South Wales. After the recommendations are made we wish to expedite the matter. The second assurance is that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will consult the local authorities


concerned on amenity aspects. That assurance we definitely give and it will be carried into effect before there is any debate.
We regard this matter as very important economically for many people and for industry. Hon. Members must take into account the balance of factors. They must consider that we wish to make progress in the matter as soon as we have the recommendations. There has been a long waiting period for a report on this business from those who are technically qualified to give it. We wish to get the Bill on the Statute Book so that, as soon as recommendations are made, we can make progress as rapidly as possible.
We do not wish that progress shall be obstructed, so I implore hon. Members to face the fact that there will be further opportunities for discussing the recommendations and the amenity aspects. In view of what has been said, I hope sincerely that the Bill may be allowed to proceed unopposed.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER having directed that the doors be locked—

Mr. Cyril Bence(seated and covered): On a point of order. The doors are locked, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The order was given to lock the doors.

Mr. Bence(seated and covered): On a point of order. My recollection is that the clearing of the Lobbies was declared about thirteen minutes to nine. It is now ten minutes to nine. It therefore appears to me—and I was watching the clock—that we were given only a maximum of three minutes to enter the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is right. There has been a mistake in the clock on the Table. I will, therefore, put the Question again.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 5.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[8.50 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hatteraley, Roy
Pavitt, Laurence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Barlow, Sir John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hooson, H. E.
Rees, Merlyn


Bessell, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hoy, James
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rowland, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Carter-jones, Lewis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Neison)


Dodds, Norman
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Solomons, Henry


Ensor, David
King, Eveiyn (Dorset, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Ledger, Ron
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Tinn, James


Gammans, Lady
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, W. E.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Gower, Raymond
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grey, Charles
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Murray, Albert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)
Neal, Harold
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Newens, Stan



Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hale, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Michael Foot and




Mr. James Johnson.




NOES


Box, Donald
Hunt, John (Bromley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Mr. Dean and Mr. Webster.


Goodhart, Philip

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Select Committee appointed to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business:
Committee to consist of sixteen Members:
Mr.Peter Bessell, Mr.Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr.Channon, Mr. Donald Chapman, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. A. J. Irvine, Mr. Carol Johnson, Mr. James Johnson, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Dame Edith Pitt, Sir Martin Redmayne, Sir William Robson Brown, Mr.Julian Snow, Mr.Thomas Steele, and Mr. Turton.
Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of the last Parliament referred to the Committee:
Power to send for persons, papers and records:
Power to report from time to time:
Instruction to the Committee to report first on:

(a) the expediency of appointing a Committee to which Bills other than Bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales could be referred for Second Reading with the aim of reducing the time required for proceedings on such Bills in the House;
(b) the times of sittings of the House;
(c) the expediency of providing that Private Members' Motions under Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public Business) should be set down for consideration after Ten o'clock, instead of as provided in the Standing Order, with the aim of reducing the congestion of Business after Questions:
Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS BILL

As amended(in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(COMMITTEES TO CONSIDER REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS.)

9.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "approved by him and".
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider, at the same time, the Amendments in page 1, lines 11,25 and 26; in Clause 3, page 3, line 22, and in Clause 8, page 6, line 2.
The first of these Amendments are drafting Amendments designed to improve the clarity of Clause 1, and the others are consequential. They do not in any way represent a change of policy but achieve, as I am advised, more clearly and precisely the intention that the Government always had in mind in regard to Clause 1—an intention which, judging from the comments on the Clause both on Second Reading and in the Committee, I am sure is shared by hon. Members on both sides.
We have two purposes in mind. The first is that the Secretary of State, in determining the composition of the committees to be set up under the Clause, should be able to determine which bodies are to be represented on both sides and how many representatives each body should have; also that he should be able to vary the bodies themselves or the numbers of representatives each may have when the circumstances justify it. This power that we intended the Secretary of State to have is similar to that which he had under Section 89 of the 1944 Act, and is the way in which that was implemented. Our second purpose is that the bodies represented on the committees should be completely free to choose the individuals who should represent them there, and to change the membership as they themselves consider necessary.
The original wording of the Clause was not quite satisfactory for achieving these


purposes, or we were advised that there might be some doubt about it. That wording had four weaknesses. First, it did not unambiguously enable the Secretary of State to decide how many representatives each of the bodies selected by him should appoint. Secondly, it left the appointing bodies to appoint their own representatives, but brought their choice of representatives within the scope of the Secretary of State's approval.
Thirdly, it did not enable the Secretary of State to alter the composition of the committee in terms of the allocation of seats once it had been approved. Fourthly, it rigidly established the individual membership of the committee except to the extent that the appointing bodies might have included a power to vary their representation in the terms in which they made their choice. Because the original wording was capable of being so interpreted we have tabled these Amendments, which achieve the objectives to which I have referred.
The Amendments have roused some comment, particularly from the National Association of Schoolmasters, whose representatives have gone on record and have been reported in the Press as being alarmed at our intentions. I emphasise once more that this does not represent any change of policy whatever, but merely clarifies a position that the National Association and other bodies have accepted in the past. Indeed, representatives of the National Association were added to the old Burnham Committee because the Minister, a few years ago, had the power, to which I have referred, to add new bodies to that Committee. The National Association campaigned to be added, and was successful in its campaign.
Its representatives have themselves recently suggested to us that they are entitled to more representatives because of an increase in membership. We have promised to consider that in due course. We believe that it is not possible to do it at present, as we are anxious to appoint the committee quickly and to begin negotiations in relation to the deadline of March.
It would therefore not be appropriate now to consult all the bodies concerned, which would be necessary if we were to make art alteration at this stage. If they are to return, as they are entitled to, to

an application for extra membership of the Committee, they will need to rely on the power of the Secretary of State to alter the composition of the committee. Therefore it is a little difficult to understand why they should be alarmed by these Amendments. I take the opportunity to assure them that we are seeking to put the Clause in such a way that there is no possibility of legal doubt about the powers of the Secretary of State in the way I have described.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I was glad to hear the Minister of State say that this was only a drafting matter, but I am not sure that he proved it by what he said. I was rather concerned that there was a change. The words used in the third Amendment
may from time to time vary or revoke any such determination
seemed a rather stronger power than I thought the Minister had. I quite accept that it could be as has been described and that there may be no cause for alarm. I must accept that that is the explanation.
Looking back to the Standing Committee stage of the Bill, I am the more suprised that hon. Members on that Committee accepted this sort of principle. I know it has always been thought right, but it is against all trade union practice for a Minister to be able to say to any individual union, or individual members of a union, "You are out from now on", as easily as that. I do not know if there is a parallel for this. Even on the Whitley Council I am not sure that anything goes so far as this. I should have thought that hon. Members who have so much at heart the principles of trade unionism as expressed by them from time to time would not have allowed this to go unchallenged.
I do not want to go back on arguments which might have been made in Committee, but this occurred to me when I looked at the Amendment. The Minister of State mentioned the National Association of Schoolmasters. Although it is the second largest body of teachers, it has only two representatives as against 16 for the N.U.T. It seems quite out of line and against all trade union principle that there should be uneven representation.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What is the proportion of membership in relation to the National Association of Schoolmasters and the N.U.T.?

Mr. Gurden: I thought the hon. Member knew these things quite well. The N.U.T. has a membership of 250,000 and 16 representatives, whereas the National Association of Schoolmasters has 35,000 members—it is the second largest body—and has only two representatives. I shall not argue the case for the N.A.S.; it is capable of arguing it, but there is an imbalance in the whole set-up. This should be changed and made a fair representation. We have to match against the figures for the National Association of Schoolmasters, two representatives and 35,000 members, another body which has one representative for 1,000 members. This cannot be right. There is a case for reviewing the whole question of membership.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: The number of representatives which the N.U.T. and the N.A.S. have is exactly right in proportion to their membership. Until we can find a way of splitting representatives, it' is difficult to see how smaller associations can be dealt with otherwise than by allowing them to have one representative.

Mr. Gurden: I am not saying that, taking any two bodies, the balance is not right, but, taking the whole list, there is a serious imbalance. I appreciate that the N.U.T. would have to give up some of its representation if the representation of the other bodies were to be made more nearly right. I am not arguing for any one of these bodies. I can understand the alarm of the N.A.S., which was not allowed representation on Burnham until my right hon. Friend gave in and allowed it to be represented.
The Amendment gives the Minister power to throw out the N.A.S., and indeed the N.U.T. and any other body, and have the members that he wishes to have on the negotiating body. I am surprised that the supporters of trade unions and trade union principles here have not made a fuss about this. Do they intend to do so now? I should have thought that they would support every one of these unions or associations in their bid to have fair representation on the new body.

Mr. Stan Newens: What does the hon. Gentleman consider would be fair representation for the N.A.S., to give only one example, different from that

which it has at present? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not dodge this question. I should like him to answer it directly.

Mr. Gurden: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech. I am not the Minister. We are talking about the future, not the past. I have referred to this only to excuse the N.A.S. or any other body for being alarmed on seeing such an Amendment on the Notice Paper, knowing the difficulties which the Association has had in the past. The Association will want to know what representation it is to have in the future. If the Amendment in page 1, line 25, which will give the Minister power
from time to time to vary or revoke any such
membership, is to be agreed to, we should have an assurance from the Minister that these bodies will have fair representation on the new committee. It is the new committee with which we are concerned now. We should like the Minister to go a little further than he has up to now and tell us what sort of representation there will be on the new body.
I have every hope and belief that the new body will work well. It is a good setup, However, I do not think that it is the right time to antagonise any of these people or to make them feel insecure. I understand that the N.A.S. and, probably, other bodies have had consultations with the Minister. The association tells me that the Minister did not say that he intended to table an Amendment such as this, although the consultations were held within a few hours of the Amendment being tabled. If that is so, the Minister should go a little further and assure every one of these bodies that they will be well looked after and will have fair representation and that there will not be any repetition of the troubles and difficulties which have occurred in the past. I hope that the Minister will go a little further than he has so far.

Mr. Richard Hornby: I should like to make one or two comments in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) has just said. I apologise that I did not hear the opening words of the speech in explanation by the Minister of State, but the point is, and I think that he took it in his


speech, that anxieties have been expressed by some constituent bodies about the meaning of the Clause, and it is well that the House should ask for and be given the fullest explanation of what is involved. It is a sad fact that relationships between one representative body and another in the educational world are not perhaps the happiest advertisement for the teaching profession as a whole. One would like to see getter relations, and the more that can be done to make the position clear the better for all concerned.
Subject to what the Minister of State was able to say and anything that he may be able to add, I think that these proposals make sense. The proposed committee is large and if variations may be in mind, and if the membership of one body or another may or may not change, there is need for some such powers as these. I cannot see how alterations could be effected unless some such wording as is now proposed appeared in the Bill. It would not be my wish therefore to oppose the Amendments, but I wish to call attention to the anxieties that have been expressed by various bodies and to say again that it is in the interests of all concerned that the Minister of State should give as full an explanation as possible.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) that there are anxieties on this point. Most of them were removed when my hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke at the beginning of the debate, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) has raised a question in my mind which I should be grateful if the Minister of State would clear up.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak suggested that because of this Clause, and because of the additions made in the Amendments, it is the intention to vary the proportions on the new Burnham Committee when it meets officially for the first time. Surely this is not the case. If this is the sort of feeling that is going about, yet again there will be anxiety on the part of many people. Can we be assured that the proportions stated by the Minister on Second Reading are the proportions which will obtain when the new Burnham Committee first meets officially and, as it were, legally,

under the terms of the Bill when it becomes an Act?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not think that we need take very much time on these Amendments. I do not want to intervene in this question of proportions between the different associations involved, but I think that a word of criticism is not out of place about the need for the Amendments and the stage at which they have been introduced, which I think has given rise to some of the misgivings.
Presumably before the Bill was introduced the Government had the best advisers, in the form of Parliamentary draftsmen, on how best to formulate their proposals. On Second Reading, as far as I remember, they were greeted with almost universal praise. No one suggested that the Clause was particularly obscure. As far as I was able to understand, I thought that I understood it. We had a Committee stage at which we had a very agreeable discussion on the Clause, and the Bill was virtually unamended in Committee where one would have thought that this kind of discussion was more appropriate than at a sitting in full House at 9.30 p.m. with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. The Amendments then appeared on the Notice Paper at a rather late moment for Report.
I put a wet towel round my head to see what it all meant and I came to the conclusion that it all meant precisely nothing: that is to say, when the Amendments—and they are numerous and comprehensive—were carried, as no doubt they will be in a few minutes' time, or as soon as the Minister has replied, no effect whatever would be achieved on the legal construction of the Bill. I believe this to be the case. Having heard the Minister of State introduce his Amendments, I understand that that is his view, too. One wonders at what stage anybody imagined that he had found any obscurity in the original words. We did not. Who was the gallant hero who thought that the parliamentary draftsmen had so completely botched their job the first time? It was not us.
If we are to find out all this sort of thing when we have reached only Report, we need not one House of Lords but two Houses of Lords to act as a kind of double longstop against the Government's


mistakes. At the end of the day, one is left with the impression that this is a rather slipshod way of doing things. Whilst one does not need to make too heavy weather about it, it seems to me to be an odd kind of procedure to which we are reduced.

Mr. Prentice: I should like to say how distressed I am to hear about the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with a wet towel round his head. I am sorry that this has occurred. The business of putting down Amendments on Report is not unknown. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends were in Government, I remember sitting on the benches opposite and often having to deal with Amendments put down on Report to clarify the meaning of a Clause because the Government of the day had been advised by their legal advisers or parliamentary draftsmen of a clearer way of phrasing the Clause. That is all that is happening now. It has happened under many Governments.
The House will be aware that Clause 1 as originally drafted, and as still drafted, used a different language from Section 89 of the 1944 Act because it must be a larger Clause to allow of the Secretary of State being represented on the committee, and so on. Therefore, this was, in a sense, a new exercise to determine, on the point which we are discussing, the same objectives: that the Secretary of State would have power to make appointments and to revoke them in the way described and, equally important, that the bodies should have the right to make their own choice of representatives to serve upon the committee and to alter them as they decide. We have been advised that the wording which we have now put down is a better way of achieving that common objective. That is really all that is before the House tonight.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) seemed at one stage to question whether the Secretary of State should have the right to vary or revoke the membership of the committee. The hon. Member and everyone else will, I think, agree that the only alternative is for the Clause to lay down precisely how many representatives each trade union and each of the local government bodies is to have, in which

event, if circumstances were to change in the future, we would need amending legislation to make an alteration. That would be nonsense, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree.
There could, of course, be changes in the relative membership of trade unions which justify a change in membership, or there could be reforms in local government which would mean that county councils as against boroughs should have a different representation. All these things might happen. It would be clumsy if legislation were needed every time to amend the composition of the committee. That has been the common view under the old legislation and under the Bill.
I realise that anxiety has been expressed by the National Association of Schoolmasters. That was why I deliberately introduced that subject when introducing the Amendments. It is, of course, possible for that Association and for those who express anxieties to say that for various reasons they are entitled to greater representation.
9.30 p.m.
It is also possible on their behalf to object to the powers of the Secretary of State to vary the committee, but it is not possible to do both at the same time. If we are ever to consider their case, or anyone else's case for different representation, we must have the power to vary the committee, and it is not really possible to make both objections simultaneously. I think there is some danger that they are being made simultaneously. It is a little illogical, and I ask hon. Members who raised the point to consider the illogicality of it.
I would say particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that so far as the membership is concerned my right hon. Friend has already made clear at previous stages of the Bill that he would vastly prefer that the teachers' organisations should agree among themselves as to the distribution of the membership, but, as he said in Committee, as they have not on this occasion or previous occasions reached agreement, he is forced to allocate seats on the committee.
He was asked to receive, and he and I received, a deputation from the National Association of Schoolmasters.


They asked for larger representation. We made it clear that this would not be the right thing at this stage, and it would not be the right thing because if we were to do this or to consider doing this we should have to consult all the other bodies and have to hear representations from them about the relevant membership and there might be some dispute about the actual figures. This would inevitably take some time; and we are all of us, and particularly the teachers' organisations, anxious to get on with the job of negotiating a new settlement.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend decided to make it quite clear to the N.A.S. that the existing numbers should prevail. I say all this here on the Floor of the House because the Association has itself gone on record publicly reporting what it said on that occasion. Of course, it is open to the Association or to anyone else later on to ask for a change, and if it is asked for it will have to be considered on its merits and the other related bodies will have to be consulted. On that we have no decision one way or the other except to say that they have the right to come to us to ask for a change.
That is all there is to it, and I think it would be wrong if anyone were to think that there is a great issue of principle involved in these Amendments, which are to clarify the purpose we all had in mind from the beginning.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 11, leave out from "more" to end of line 17 and insert:
persons nominated from time to time by the Secretary of State to represent him, together with persons representing one or more bodies to which this paragraph applies;
(c) persons representing one or more bodies to which this paragraph applies".

In line 25, at end insert:
(3) The Secretary of State shall determine which bodies to which paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section applies are to be represented on each committee constituted under this section, and the number of persons by whom any such body is to be so represented, and may from time to time vary or revoke any such determination.
(4) Subject to any such determination of the Secretary of State, it shall be for each body to which any such determination relates to nominate from time to time the person or persons by whom it is to be represented on a committee constituted under this section.

In line 26, leave out "when approving a committee" and insert:
at the time when a commitee is constituted".—[Mr. Prentice.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(REVIEW OF REMUNERATION BY COMMITTEES.)

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "shall" to "and" in line 27 and to insert:
make such modifications of the draft as are requisite for giving effect to any representations made by the committee with respect thereto".
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to consider, at the same time, the next Amendment, in page 3, line 8, and the two Amendments to Clause 4.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Prentice: The purpose of these Amendments is to give effect to an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee, following Amendments which were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
All these Amendments deal with the duty of my right hon. Friend in dealing with representations made to him from a negotiating committee in respect of the terms of a draft document of a draft order which is designed to implement either an agreed settlement or an arbitration award.
In Committee it was generally agreed on both sides that the Bill should impose an absolute obligation on my right hon. Friend to accept such recommendations and to act on them if there had been an agreed settlement by negotiation between the two sides and also if there had been an arbitration award, except in the unusual circumstances where that award had been set aside by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
We seek by these Amendments to achieve the objectives in this way. The first two Amendments deal with the situation in which there has been an agreed negotiated settlement. They take out the words
may if he thinks fit
originally in the Clause, and substitute the words on the Notice Paper which make it clear that my right hon.


Friend would give effect to the submissions made to him by the Committee. This has to be done twice in two seperate Amendments, because there are two circumstances here: one in which there is a draft document which lays down a new settlement entirely, and the other in which there is an order which amends a previous document, but the principle is the same in both cases.
In the circumstances where there has been an arbitration award, and one which has not been subject to the exceptional procedure of being overruled by Parliament, the same obligations would apply. There is no need to put down an Amendment to deal with this because Clause 4(1) applies the relative parts of Clause 2 to an award of that kind.
In the exceptional circumstances where Parliament has overthrown an arbitration award under the terms of Clause 4(2), rather different principles apply, and hon. Members will see that there we are proposing to have the words
may if he thinks fit
left in the Bill, whereas we are deleting them in the earlier Clause.
If the situation arises—which, of course, we hope will be very rare and exceptional—in which both Houses of Parliament have overthrown an arbitration award, under the terms of the Clause the Secretary of State would still consult both sides of the committee to try to get an agreed draft consistent with the views of Parliament, but I think we have to recognise that if that situation arose he may not be able to get agreement from both sides of the committee, and there would have to be some way out of the deadlock. Therefore, he must have this reserve power which we have allowed for in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 8, leave out from "shall" to "and" in line 11 and insert:
make such modifications of the draft as are requisite for giving effect to any representations made by the committee with respect thereto".—[Mr. Prentice.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(PROVISION FOR ARBITRATION.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 22, leave out from "subsection" to end of line 25 and insert:

in relation to a committee, the Secretary of State shall consult the bodies which are to be presented on the committee in accordance with any determinations made by him under section 1 of this Act which are for the time being in force".—[Mr.Prentice.]

Mr. Newens: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, at the end to insert:
(3) The arrangements made under subsection (1) of this section shall contain provisions whereby a reference to arbitration shall not be made unless the chairman of the committee after consulting the committee has ruled that an agreement cannot be reached on a particular point or points.
I make no apology for moving the Amendment, because it deals with an important matter which has been raised at other stages. The basic reason is that considerable disquiet exists over the provision for arbitration in the Bill. This disquiet exists among teachers' organisations and people who are concerned with the principles of free trade unionism and collective bargaining.
At present, it is left to the Minister to decide whether a matter shall be referred to arbitration. I am not concerned with the position under the present Minister, but we must face the fact that he will not always be there, and some of us have memories of previous Ministers who took actions that we felt were not particularly correct at the time. As the Clause stands, the Minister will decide whether to refer a matter to arbitration after consulting various bodies. There are many such bodies. The amazing fact is that if one of these bodies objected the Minister could presumably declare that certain questions could not be decided other than by reference to arbitration.
In effect, it seems that the Minister will decide whether or not deadlock has been reached on any issue which is being discussed by the committee. It is therefore possible that the matter could be sent to arbitration in the face of the united opposition of the teachers' panel. This would mean, in effect, that we had compulsory arbitration. That is why considerable disquiet exists among many people who have been considering the effects of the Bill.
Further, it appears that the Secretary of State could withhold his decision to go to arbitration. Since the Secretary of State is represented on the management


side it means that the management—almost, but not quite, with a majority—has an unfair advantage, in that it is able to compel representatives of employees to accept arbitration whereas the representatives of the employees have no such right in respect of the management. The representatives of management and employees are not evenly matched, and it is extremely important at this stage to try to redress that adverse balance.
Hitherto, the principle of compulsory arbitration has not been generally applied in peace time. I know that it applies in the case of salary settlements for firemen and the police, and I also know that during the war the Minister of Labour could refer a dispute to the National Arbitration Tribunal and that its decision was binding upon both sides. But comparing that arrangement with the present one gives rise to considerable disquiet, because the present one writes into the Bill an advantage to the employers' side.
In my view, the idea that management and labour are completely equal is at best somewhat fictional, especially in cases where management consists of the State or local authorities. In those circumstances we must consider what is being done and ask ourselves why teachers should be selected as guinea pigs for this experiment.
9.45 p.m.
No special conditions apply as in the case of the police or firemen. We know that suggestions of compulsory arbitration would produce a near riot if made in connection with the negotiations carried out in other industries. There is, I think, a long-term danger in this innovation. We must all face the fact that in modern society there is a tendency to centralise power. There is what one might call a centripetal factor in the disposition of power in modern society, which is reflected in the growth of monopolies and oligarchies in industry, and also in the advance of the power of the State into many new fields. This' tendency has been expedited on a worldwide scale.
While I am an uncompromising Socialist who makes no bones about his belief in the extension of public ownership, I also believe that we should resist this centripetal or centralising tendency in modern society. Therefore, I think

we must resist the provisions in this Clause which place more power in the hands of the Minister. It may be said that I am elevating quite a trifling development to the level of a principle, but great changes often result from the accumulation of many small changes. If one studies the way in which changes in society occur, one will discover that they do not result from a sweeping revolution as much as from gradual changes which add up to a very large change. I therefore appeal to the Minister to realise the disquiet which is aroused and the tendency which exists and I hope that he will be able to afford some satisfaction to people who feel as I do.
At previous stages in the discussion on this Bill I indicated that I was unhappy about proposals for compulsory arbitration and put forward suggestions. In this Amendment there is a new suggestion, that the independent chairman, after consulting the committee, should decide whether a matter be referred to arbitration. I should be happier with another arrangement, but if the independent chairman rather than the Minister has the right to decide whether deadlock has been reached, after consulting the Committee, some of the anxieties which we feel will be removed. This Amendment, I consider, would help to redress some of the adverse balance to which I referred earlier.
People may ask what we do if deadlock arises. It would be up to the independent chairman to decide when that situation had been reached. I grant to hon. Members who may raise this point that it may be inconvenient should deadlock be reached. But collective bargaining is an inconvenient arrangement in any case. It would be much more convenient if the Minister were able to lay down decisions without referring to the representatives of the employees at all. But in a free society, where we have collective bargaining, we have to provide means for the representatives of the employees to have a say in these matters. We must respect their right to say "No", even if it happens to be inconvenient. After all, other industries manage without proposals for compulsory arbitration. Often, they reach deadlock. Why


on earth can we not have a similar arrangement for teachers? Are we more afraid that they may hold our society up to ransom? What is the reason for it? I do not understand it.
I think that if we introduced the provisions provided by this Amendment we should be considerably helped in resolving the difficulties to which I have referred. In the first place, we should succeed in satisfying the employees or their representatives that we were giving them a fair crack of the whip. We must realise that in industry today many of the difficulties which arise are caused by the fact that there is no consultation and that there is insufficient respect for the views which employees may hold. I think that democracy means something more than a vote at the polling stations every two or three years. It means conscious participation and the opportunity for participation in all decisions which are made in all spheres of life—and this means our workaday lives as well as the exercise of our rights in political democracy.
I think that this issue is raised in this Clause which we are discussing. I think it will be a particularly bad omen if teachers start off feeling dissatisfied with the machinery. If they feel dissatisfaction with the machinery, it is quite clear that at the later stage, if they are not satisfied with the fruits which result from the negotiations, they will blame that machinery.
I hope that the Minister will feel, accordingly, that he can accept the Amendment. I want to impress upon him that these thing to which I have referred this evening reflect real feelings and real anxieties among teachers and their representatives. I recognise that at other stages, statements were made by my hon. Friends in Committee in particular which sought to resolve the difficulties to which I have referred, but I do not think that those statements went far enough. I want to point out the powers which will be put in the hands of the Minister even as the Bill stands. The Minister decides the form of arbitration, he decides the points to be submitted to arbitration, he decides whether arbitration is to be resorted to at all, he decides when arbitration is to we resorted to and then, if arbitration is used and if natural economic circumstances

 prevail, the Secretary of State, with the consent of both Houses may overturn a settlement. I have dropped many objections which I felt to this Bill, but this one which I feel is crucial.
Let us be quite clear that arbitration as things stand could be resorted to before negotiations had been exhausted. In 1962, at first, £9 million was offered to the teachers. The Minister might, at this stage, because no further agreement had been reached, under the present Bill—had it been in operation—have said that deadlock had been reached and immediately, the matter would have been referred to arbitration procedure. In fact, negotiations continued and, eventually, a settlement in February, 1963, awarded £20 million to the teachers.
This indicates the way in which arbitration could cut across collective bargaining and across negotiations and could prevent a satisfactory settlement from being reached. We must consider that in the Bill we are determining machinery which may last for a generation, and we must recognise that it would be much more difficult later to alter that machinery. While, therefore, there is time, I hope that my hon. Friends will consider very carefully the points which I have made and will go as far as they can with me to give some satisfaction on these issues.
I make no apology for the fact that I have taken some time in the House on this question. I have been an active trade unionist for a number of years, and I know how strongly those who work in teaching or in orther industries feel in matters of this sort. It is all very well for us at this level to dismiss their feelings with a wave of the hand or a benign smile. These issues are important, and I therefore plead that we should give them very serious consideration, because satisfaction on the part of employees, particularly in a vital sector of our economy such as teaching, is essential if our society is to succeed and is to go forward in the future.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friends will give weight to the points which I have raised this evening and consider how far they can go with me on these issues, which are of vital importance.

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr.Newens) has no need to apologise for taking some time


of the House on this issue. It is of great value to all of us that it has been raised in the form in which he has raised it, because clearly there has been anxiety about Clause 3 and about the nature of arbitration. We discussed this on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is valuable to return to it tonight. I begin by saying that I shall be able to accept not the Amendment as it stands but the purpose of the Amendment, and I thereby hope to go a great deal of the way to meet the points which my hon. Friend made.
Perhaps before dealing with the rôle of the chairman, which is central to the Amendment, I may be allowed to comment that in moving the Amendment my hon. Friend was referring to his view on the Clause and was attackinig the concept of arbitration as it is contained in the Bill. On this there is clearly a difference of view between him and the Government which has come out in previous discussions. But I assure him, as I attempted to assure him in Committee, that it is wrong to describe the rôle of the Secretary of State in the terms in which he described it a few moments ago.
I remind him and the House that the Clause says that
The Secretary of State shall make arrangements
for determining these matters and that it goes on to say that before making arrangements he shall consult the bodies represented on the committee. As we have explained in previous stages, what we have in mind is a delicate set of arrangements by which this can be determined. It is not a simple power of the Secretary of State to decide all things in the way in which my hon. Friend suggested.
In doing so, we have in mind two objectives. One is to draw up arrangements by which it will not be possible for negotiations to be in a state of perpetual deadlock. The phrase "perpetual deadlock" was used by my hon. Friend on Second Reading and the word "perpetual" should be stressed, because we are seeking to make arrangements by which there may be some way out of perpetual deadlock. It should be realised that the deadlock would apply to either side and that it might be the employing side which insisted—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Question again proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Prentice: I ask those who are in favour of leaving the situation in the state where perpetual deadlock is possible to recognise that it would apply to either side and that it might mean, for example, that the employing side could insist on there being deadlock, which might mean that existing salaries would go on being paid and that there was no way out. This consideration is on the whole question of whether Clause 3 should be in the Bill.
One of our objectives being to avoid perpetual deadlock, our other objective—and I stress this strongly, as I did in Committee—is to avoid any issue going prematurely to arbitration before every possible means has been explored of resolving the deadlock. It is on this that I accept the intention of the Amendment; that the rôle of the chairman could be quite important.
It is encouraging to note that throughout the stages of the Bill this suggestion has come up several times. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) suggested that the chairman might have a positive rôle to play and my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) also took this view as a result of his long experience of these matters. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Epping, with his experience of the N.U.T., has also made this suggestion, it is encouraging to note that there is an consensus of opinion emerging, with which the Government would wish to be associated, that this is indeed an important suggestion.
As hon. Members know, we are committed to consulting with the bodies represented on the committees to draw up these arrangements for arbitration, Those consultations cannot take place formally until the Bill has become law, but they can take place informally and, in fact, I can tell the House that we have drawn up the draft of a series of suggestions which we are about to send


to the teachers' organisations and local authorities for their comments on the way these arrangements would work.
I am glad to take this opportunity to say that this draft will provide for arrangements by which no issue can go to arbitration until every possible opportunity of reaching agreement has been exhausted. Further, if there is disagreement about that between the two sides—in other words, if one side thinks that there is no further opportunity of reaching agreement and the other side thinks that there is—then it should be the chairman of the committee who should give a ruling on whether the stage has been reached for the matter to go to arbitration. Thus we have put into these draft arrangements precisely the point contained in the Amendment.
I must emphasise that this is a draft which still has to be considered by the other bodies. Obviously we will have to consider their views on it. I am encouraged by the fact that there has been support in the House from hon. Members on both sides, from hon. Members with varying experience of this matter, but I cannot anticipate at this moment what formal views may be given by either the teachers' organisations or the local authorities. It is certainly our view that the rôle of the chairman should be the rôle as proposed in the Amendment.
I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment because it would be wrong to write it as it stands into the Bill. It would be wrong for three reasons. First, it would be contrary to the principle that arrangements should be made in consultation with the various parties. Secondly, if we are going to think of writing in one aspect of the arrangements, we must think of writing them all in—and various of the bodies concerned, the teachers' organisations or local authorities, might argue the case for some other paragraphs of the arrangements to be the subjects of Amendment, and we would have to take time to consider those matters.
Thirdly, I would resist the Amendment in the literal sense because I think that it would make things too permanent. It would mean amending legislation if we ever wanted to alter this arrangement.

We have in mind that, once agreed, these should be standing arrangements, and though arrangements that we could regard as standing for a long time, something that could be amended at a future date by any party proposing to the others that that should be done. Indeed, the rôle of the chairman himself must depend in some measure on the views taken by him at a particular time. If experience turned out badly, he might prefer a lesser rôle.
We therefore have to be flexible in this matter, so we think that it would be wrong to write the Amendment into the Bill. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend sufficient assurance that we accept the principle of the Amendment and want the arrangements, if the other parties agree, to contain precisely the principle that he has put before the House this evening.

Mr. Newens: Is it quite clear that arrangements would be changed by agreement between the parties, and not merely by the Secretary of State's own decision?

Mr. Prentice: I think that the answer to that question is contained in the wording of the Clause, because subsection (2) states
Before making any arrangements … the Secretary of State shall consult the bodies…".
That would apply to any alteration to the arrangement. The Secretary of State would have to consult the bodies. Similarly, if any body wanted to propose alterations, the Secretary of State would have to consult all the other bodies before any changes were made.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: We have before as what are, in effect, alternative forms of a single principle. As the House knows, from the Second Reading debate onwards I have always taken the view that this is one of the crucial issues that will have to be faced, either during the passage of the Bill or in the working arrangements which succeed its passage into law. I myself prefer the alternative proposed by the Minister of State to that contained in the Amendment, and as I wish—up to a point, at any rate—to be helpful in this matter, I want to explain why I prefer this flexible form to the rigid form proposed by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens).
I think that I am right in saying that the difference between the two forms is


the difference between the rigidity of an Act of Parliament and flexibility—that is, the right of the Secretary of State to make arrangements from time to time. The Minister of State was quite right in saying that it was I—or, if not I, someone on this side of the Chamber, amongst others, who suggested on Second Reading that the chairman of the arbitrary body should have a positive rôle to play in determining this crucial issue.
It is as well to be quite clear what the crucial issue is. If we are to have a system of arbitration built into the negotiating machinery for the remuneration of teachers, it comes into operation when deadlock has been reached, or after deadlock has been reached and, one hopes, not until then. The ideal solution is that the committee, or committees, agree. I do not think anyone would doubt this. The question is: who is to decide when deadlock has been reached? This is the point at issue. It could go on like a running sore. The hon. Member for Epping thought that the position of the parties is not equal. The position of the parties is not the same, but that does not mean that they are not equal. Each has a weapon of negotiation, but it is in each case a different weapon. Each is vulnerable to pressure of a different kind. There have been examples in recent years of this vulnerability in both directions.
The old sanction of Burnham as it was unaltered—it is this which I think the hon. Member has
forgotten—was that if no agreement was reached under Burnham, there being thereafter no arbitration procedure to resort to, the teachers were under pressure precisely because they got no increase of pay until they agreed. That was a very considerable sanction in practice over the years and one which was very generally recognised both in the teaching profession and by those concerned with educational matters. It is precisely this pressure on the teachers, to which they are quite certainly vulnerable, which would continue to remain if the hon. Member's basic objection to a built-in arbitral procedure were allowed to remain. I think that he has overlooked that point.
On the other hand, the teachers have a very powerful weapon. They can keep the negotiations going because the Minister, whoever he may be, is vulnerable to pressure in this House. The teachers

on more occasions than one have used that weapon with quite considerable effect. I have always expressed the view, and I expressed it again, that the object which everyone should seek to achieve in discussing this matter ought if possible to be to take this kind of thing out of party politics, indeed, out of political pressure, and to put in a system of negotiating machinery which would give dignity to the profession and dignity to public life.
The dignity of both is basically offended by what has been going on in recent years under the continuation of the old machinery which, as I have said throughout these proceedings, I regard as obsolete. But that means, in effect, that both parties ought to face in that negotiating machinery the fact that the original weapon which they were entitled to use is taken away from them in the ultimate resort and where deadlock has been genuinely reached neither the employers would be able to withhold any form of award indefinitely, nor indefinitely could this matter be made the resort of political pressure in this House.
For a certain period this may be legitimate, but in the end this negotiating procedure will work only if the arbitration procedure is built in. I think that is what the Minister meant when he talked about the avoidance of perpetual deadlock. I must apologise, no less than the hon. Member for Epping did, for taking some time on this matter, but it is one of the crucial discussions we must have. He described this form of arbitration as compulsory arbitration. That, in trade union ears, is often a red rag to a bull—if a red rag can be anything in anyone's ears. I do not wholly agree with the hon. Member. The words "compulsory arbitration" contain a multitude of quite different meanings. This, again, was a circumstance which I think he overlooked.
All arbitrations are, in a sense, compulsory once both sides are bound to accept the award. An ordinary commercial arbitration based on an arbitration agreement is compulsory and will be enforced by the courts in the sense that the parties will not be allowed to litigate in preference to arbitration. This is compulsory only in the sense that—given certain circumstances—it becomes automatic, that is to say, the


arbitration is built in as part of the negotiating machinery.
This is true. It is not a unique case in industry and it is not a unique case in the public service. Some industries go in for a built-in arbitral procedure. Some do not. There is no uniform pattern over industry and, so far as I can see, there is no reason why there should be a uniform pattern over industry.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Newens: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an example which occurs in industry or in the public service, apart from the police and firemen, where the State is represented in the negotiating machinery and also has the right to declare that a matter shall go to arbitration? If he could give a similar example, I might consider the matter further. I do not know of any such example.

Mr. Hogg: That is not what the Minister proposes here, as I understand it. He proposes that in the arrangements which the Secretary of State makes the chairman of the arbitral board shall play a positive rôle just as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Where we are not at one, however, is in complaining that the basic arbitral procedure under the Bill is compulsory arbitration.
I want to explain to the hon. Gentleman why we differ about this. All I was saying—it is a rather different point to that put to me by the hon. Gentleman—is that this is not the only case where an industry or a public service has a built-in arbitral procedure as part of its negotiating machinery, to be resorted to where deadlock is arrived at. The kind of arbitration which is called compulsory arbitration and which, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because, although I know that he thinks that nobody on this side of the House knows anything about either trade unions or arbitration—

Mr. Newens: I have never suggested that.

Mr. Hogg: In Committee the hon. Gentleman did, but he has not suggested it this evening. Perhaps he has learned a little already since the Committee

stage. What offends trade unionists, rightly or wrongly, is not that an arbitral procedure should be built into negotiating machinery, but that an arbitration should be made a condition of the right of withdrawal of labour. In that sense, this is not compulsory arbitration in any shape or form. Therefore, to describe this proposed machinery as compulsory arbitration is misleading, because the phrase is equivocal. It can have a perfectly innocent sense from the trade union point of view, as this has. It can have a very sinister sense, which this has not.
On that assumption, the only objection I see to what is proposed which can be argued at this stage, until we try the arrangements and until they have been worked out in negotiation, is that it may compromise the position of the chairman of the board of arbitrators so that he loses his authority with the side against whom he chooses in declaring a deadlock. This could quite easily happen, because the situation under which he will exercise his authority in this respect in declaring the deadlock will be one, and can ex hypothesi only be one, in which one side wants to go to arbitration and the other does not, one side saying, "Deadlock has been reached. We must go to arbitration", the other saying, "Deadlock has not been reached. We must not go". If this happens, and the chairman is given the power which it is now apparently conceded he should be given, it means that at that stage he must choose between the two sides and decide in favour of one.
The condition upon which this suggestion will work rests upon the proposition that, if the chairman is asked to do this and he does it, he must not lose the respect or confidence or good will of either side, either the winning side or the losing side, because otherwise some other arrangement will have to be found. Nobody can tell for an instant until this is tried out whether that will happen. No form of machinery can be written into these arrangements which will not ultimately have to survive the test of experience.
The reason I prefer the Minister's present draft to the Amendment is that if this is tried and does not work the Minister can have a second shot at it. If it is tried and it works he will not,


of course, need a second shot, whereas under the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member if he tries it and it does not work he will have to come to the House for amending legislation—amending legislation which ex hypothesi could only be proposed to the House if some kind of unseemly and undesirable event such as I have tried to describe occurred.
I share the doubt of the hon. Member for Epping about past Ministers, present Ministers and future Ministers. He tried to wrap it up a bit. He evidently had some doubts about how long the Minister was likely to remain in office, because he founded his case upon the supposition that future Ministers might be more like those who preceded the present Minister and, therefore, ex hypothesi would be less agreeable to him. Let me assure the hon. Member that his fears in one respect are only too well grounded.
I do not think that the Minister will be in office longer than the hon. Member supposes but I assure him that when the time comes he will find a Minister from this side of the House just as agreeable to do business with.
The other argument was a philosophical argument based in the same kind of country, which the hon. Member put as the centripetal force—

Mr. Newens: Centripetal.

Mr. Hogg: Although I am not an official of the National Union of Teachers, I shall go on calling it centripetal as long as I like. However the hon. Member pronounces it, that is what he would avoid.
I have heard that speech made from this side of the House. Indeed, I think I have made it myself from time to time. It leads to a peroration which says that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing that I find strange about the hon. Member's argument is that he says, "I do not agree with the restriction of the power of the State when it is applied to anybody else. It is only when it is applied to me that I do not like it". This is what we on this side of the House do not altogether accept. Nevertheless, I hope that despite this difference of philosophy in which the hon. Gentleman plays the part of St. Augustine saying to the good Lord, "Lord make me chaste, but not now"

or"Make anybody chaste but not me", in spite of the hon. Member's illogical opposition to the centripetal force of the State when it applies to himself but not when it is applied to industry, I hope that he will realise that both Front Benches are against him.
As they now form, so I read in today's paper, part of one joint Establishment, I hope that he will feel that the power of argument is overwhelmingly on the other side.

Mr. Orme: I want to thank the Minister for his elucidation of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr.Newens) on this Clause. After listening to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I am not so sure that the teachers would not have some genuine fears if we were to return to the past. It is precisely because of these fears that the teachers have raised this matter with many of us on this side of the House.
We have had representation and letters from the National Union of Teachers about this problem and the words "compulsory arbitration" have been bandied about. The words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State have gone some way to alleviate the fear which exists concerning this question of compulsory arbitration.
In the trade union world as a whole, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone has suggested, this has connotations which are not happy to trade unionists. They feel that for an employer, whether the State or anyone else, to have the right to submit a case to arbitration compulsorily and for an employee to accept the terms of such an arbitration award makes a complete mockery of any previous negotiation which has taken place in the industry and any form of collective bargaining that has gone before.
The National Union of Teachers is concerned about this matter at a national level. It was prepared to accept the Minister's original draft and it has, I think, subsequently raised doubts with him on this matter. We have to carry with us an important part of the teaching profession at a very difficult time when, over the past and in recent years, its members have been greatly disturbed about the whole form of the negotiating machinery, which has been violated by the party


opposite; the Burnham Committee was destroyed by hon. Members opposite. Because of that, people feel that they need assurance in the new form of machinery which has been introduced.
Despite the jocular remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone about future Ministers of Education, we on this side have no doubt about the wisdom and sincerity of my right hon. Friend and the manner in which he will conduct himself in the committee and his association with the organisations. They look, however, to a form of machinery to be set up which will have a fairly permanent basis over a considerable number of years. For that reason, we have to carry the teaching profession with us. There are other people outside the teaching profession who are watching the form of negotiation which is being set up and they want to be sure that it not only appears just, but is just.
The remarks made tonight by my hon. Friend the Minister of State go some way to clearing up the doubts which exist, and I hope that these remarks will go out from this House to the organisations concerned. I am assured by my hon. Friend's remarks that he will await the opinions of those organisations and consult them further. Because of that, I am more satisfied. This short debate on arbitration has been important and I hope that when future negotiations take place, the Minister will bear in mind the points that my hon. Friends have made tonight.

Mr. Gurden: Far be it from me to disagree with anything that has been said. The only point I wish to make is that in Standing Committee we had exactly the same sort of argument. This is almost a complete repetition of what we had there. We all understood the case to be well made by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and his hon. Friends. The point was a sincere and legitimate one for the National Union of Teachers to put forward, as the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said.
We all understood that on the previous occasion in Standing Committee, the hon. Member did not wish to press the Amendment to a Division. It was a sheer accident that a Division happened to be called. Anyway, it passed off. What

disturbs me is that here we are on Report, with exactly the same performance, and the same players.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Newens: Why not?

Mr. Gurden: The hon. Gentleman asks "Why not?" But what is the object of the second exercise? Is the hon. Gentleman going to carry this Amendment to a Division? Exactly the same thing is happening all over again. The hon. Gentleman has had exactly the same reply. The Minister says, "We are not going to have it written into the Bill." Why raise the matter a second time? Is it just a little more window dressing to please his friends on the N.U.T. or does he really mean what he says?

Mr. William Hamling: If I may follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), I would point out that the Bill is the property of the House. It is not the property of the Standing Committee. I should have thought that those of us who were not members of the Standing Committee were entitled to hear some of the arguments and to take part in the debate. We could not have taken part in this discussion on the Second Reading. To that extent, therefore, my hon. Friends are justified in having put down this Amendment.

Mr. Gurden: I accept that. It is all right for any other Member to come here and state his arguments, but what I am asking is, "What will the hon. Gentleman do next time?" He did not vote for his Amendment when the Division was called. Will he do the same thing next time?

Mr. Hamling: Having heard my hon. Friend, I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment. I am entitled to hear what my hon. Friends say, and I am entitled to state my point of view, which is that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
For the first time in my life I am very much in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I thought that for once he had been talking sense.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will learn.

Mr. Hamling: What have I to learn now? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was a philosophical question. It is not. It is a perfectly practical point. The point is that the Treasury and the State are taking an increasing share in the finances of teachers' salaries. This is a practical and not a philosophical point. I am not sure whether St. Augustine would have been in favour of State aid to teachers, but his successors certainly are.
I must declare my interest. I was once a member of the N.A.S. and I left because I thought it was not a union, but an organised agitation. I am now, and have been for a long time, a member of the National Union of Teachers and a local officer, and I am resisting this Amendment. So let not the hon. Member for Selly Oak think that this is an agitation organised by the N.U.T. It is not. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend did not call it an organised agitation. This is a practical discussion among teachers and among Members of this House who are interested in education.
This is a serious point. If the State is to play an increasing part in the payment of teachers' salaries, is it not entitled to play an increasing part in the determination of those salaries by negotiation? I have advised my members that in the future the State may play an even greater part than it does now. I very much hope that it will. We may then face a situation, as forecast by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in which the party opposite will demand an even greater voice in negotiation. I am glad that my right hon. Friend resisted this idea in principle when he spoke on Second Reading.
My hon. Friends have said that the Clause as presented means compulsory arbitration. I do not believe that it does, and in this I follow the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. This is not compulsory arbitration. In my view, this Amendment would lead even more to automatic arbitration than the Clause as it stands. We all know what lawyers are. The Amendment says
The arrangements made under subsection (1) … shall contain provisions whereby a reference to arbitration shall not be made unless the chairman of the committee … has ruled that an agreement cannot be reached …
We all know how lawyers' minds work, and we may reach the situation that the

Clause would be interpreted that an arbitration shall be made if the chairman has ruled than an agreement cannot be reached. I am sure that hon. Members with experience of the law will know that that is just how the lawyers would interpret it. They do not ask what Parliament intended. They say, "This is how it appears to us."
It seems to me that if we accept this Amendment we may reach the position where arbitration becomes much more the rule than is at present envisaged under the Clause as it stands. There is the further point that the chairman will become more and more involved in questions of interpretation and will, therefore, lose his impartiality. I do not like arbitration. I am in favour of negotiation. If we reach the situation where agreements cannot be made, where disagreements appear, then one side or other may use that situation to persuade the chairman that there are disagreements, and arbitration will become automatic. We do not want that.
I would feel, therefore, that, with those ideas in mind, my hon. Friend will with draw the Amendment.

Mr. Prentice: With the leave of the House to address it again, I shall be only about one minute, first, to say that there is a good deal of common ground between the two sides of the House on this. I do not want to comment on what has been said, and nor do I find much to comment on in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I am in the rather disturbing position of agreeing with what he said, although when he said he thought my right hon. Friend would not be long in this office I could not see what sort of reshuffle of the existing Government he was contemplating in the years ahead. However, perhaps it would not be in order to pursue that further.
There are two points to which I would briefly make reference. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was unfair to my hon. Friends. I thought that it was a proposal of value. I am sure that most hon. Members would think it of value to discuss something which is disturbing a number of people outside. Certainly, my right hon. Friend and I


welcome the opportunity to clarify once more what are our intentions in this Clause.
Moreover, this was a new point. The Amendment dealing with the rôle of the chairman was not moved in Committee, so this is a new point, and I assume that if it were not the Amendment would not have been called. It is a new point and valuable for that reason, as well as for allowing us to go over this ground again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) voiced once more the fear that we have heard from other quarters about compulsory arbitration. It is important to recognise, as my right hon. Friend did, that these are emotive words, words which have a number of meanings. What we propose here contains an element of compulsion in the sense that if there is deadlock, if it is clear that the methods of pursuing the situation by negotiation have failed, then arrangements will be made by which there will be reference to arbitration, which may be against the wishes of one side of the Committee. In that sense, there is compulsion.
This is not compulsory arbitration in the sense often understood in the trade union movement. I think that he recognises, in what he says, that it is important that all should make this clear to those outside the House who have doubts and fears about it.
Of course, we feel, as my hon. Friend has said, that negotiation is what we want. Arbitration is the last resort, but the fact that arbitration is available will help

negotiation in a way which has not been available in the past. As I said earlier, we hope to meet in our draft arrangements the main point of the Amendment. Therefore, I would hope that my hon. Friend would see his way to withdraw the Amendment, bearing that assurance in mind.

Mr. Newens: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): The hon. Member cannot address the House for a second time on Report unless he wishes to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Newens: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, it was my intention to withdraw the Amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(ACTION ON RECOMMENDA- TION OF ARBITRATORS.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 13, after "shall", insert:
(subject to the next following subsection)".

In line 17, at end insert:
(4) Subsections (4) and (6) of section 2 of this Act, as applied by the last preceding subsection, shall each have effect with the substitution, for the words from "shall make" to "giving effect to", of the words "may, if he thinks fit, modify the draft in consequence of".—[Mr. Prentice.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 2, leave out from "committee" to "under" and insert "constituted".—[Mr. Prentice.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not propose to trespass very long on the time of the House, but I would like to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in our discussions and helped to give us the speedy passage of the Bill which was the desire of the Government and, I think, of all those outside the House who are concerned in this matter.
The Bill has been slightly amended both in Committee and on Report and thereby improved in certain respects, so we can say that we have not rushed this exercise but have been reasonably quick in carrying it through. The urgency to which I refer is, of course, that the existing provisions for teachers' salaries expire on 31st March. Although we have in the Bill a Clause relating to retrospection, it would, I am sure, be the wish of everyone that we proceed as quickly as possible with the negotiations with a view to completing them at or about 31st March, or before if possible, so that we need not think in terms of retrospection unless that is absolutely essential.
Briefly, I would simply remind the House that the Bill contains a number of important reforms to the machinery that went before. Previously there was no provision for retrospection, which was a weakness of the old arrangement, and previously there was no arrangement for arbitration, which was also a weakness. Both are now provided in the Bill.
Most important of all under the old arrangement was that there was no provision for the Secretary of State to join in negotiations. He simply had the blunt instrument of Section 89 of the 1944 Act which was available to him after everything else had happened. Hon Members on this side of the House have often criticised the way in which that Section has been used by the previous Government. We have disagreed with the way that they used their power, but no one who takes a realistic view of this problem should, I think, disagree with the proposition that the Secretary of State must have power in this field, because he is responsible for teacher supply and the Exchequer provides the greater part of the money for teachers' salaries.
Obviously, he must have a power here, and what we have written into the Bill is a rationalisation of that power, adding certain points to the power that he had before, subtracting certain things from the power that he had before, and trying to create a modern piece of machinery which will rationalise the rôle of the Secretary of State in relation to the other functions.
In doing that we have sought to preserve, and, indeed, to strengthen, the valuable features of the Burnham machinery which have proved themselves over the years. There are three of these. First, that teachers' salaries should be settled by free negotiations. This is now something which has become almost a cliché when people refer to negotiations for wages and salaries in all sectors, but it is something which the public sector in many ways pioneered, and many features which have grown up in relation to teachers' and other salaries in the public sector have now been copied elsewhere. This is one feature of the Burnham machinery which we would want to preserve.
Secondly, that for those negotiations there should be a statutory committee on which both sides are represented, the employing side and the teachers' organisations, with equal voting strength and with an independent chairman. Thirdly, that the settlements which emerge from this forum of negotiations should be made statutory and binding by order.
Those are the features of the system which have proved themselves over the years. They are preserved in the Bill, and I submit are strengthened by the other reforms which are made. We should remind ourselves that the success of this machinery depends on those who are going to use it. It depends on the good will of the Government, and on the good will and co-operative attitude of both the teachers' organisations and the local authorities.
Some doubts have been raised about the use that could be made of this machinery by some hypothetical future Government which at some time in the long distant future might take office again. It is in the nature of political power of any kind that it can be used wisely or unwisely. No one can guarantee what use will be made of a powerful instrument by an unwise Government in the future, and we could not guard against that in the


way we have drawn up this Bill. We should see that the machinery we provide does not obstruct good will where there is good will, and this we have sought to do.
It is our intention to make early use of this machinery for negotiations, and to do so in a spirit of co-operation and good will towards the other parties concerned.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to prolong this discussion. I think that the Minister of State was wise to acknowledge the part which had been played by my hon. Friends at all stages of the Bill. I hope he feels that we have given the Bill a reasonably fair wind, and have added to the discussions, and not unduly delayed its passage through the House.
I have never thought that it is one of the main functions of the Opposition to oppose. Its main function is to focus attention on points of division, and that is not done by providing an absolutely monotonous recitative of complaints about the actions of the Government of the day. I do not think that it is our function to do that.
Moreover, I think it has emerged during the course of these discussions that the Bill which we are about to pass on to another place is very much the same instrument as was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) on 3rd March last year, and carried on over a period of time when I was Secretary of State, and it would have been both dishonest and at the same time wrong of me not to be candid in my support of the main features of the Measure.
I think that it will do the one thing which I was always anxious that it should do—and if we are talk about election pledges which in fact, I did pledge myself to do had the election gone otherwise—namely, to provide a negotiating machinery which, so far as a negotiating machinery can do it, would remove the remuneration of the teaching profession from the sphere of the rather unseemingly wrangles of recent years.
I do not believe that it was due to a double dose of original sin either in successive Ministers—and as I was never one of them I can say that with perfect

detachment, despite the reluctance of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) to agree with anything I happen to say—or on the part of the teachers or local authorities; it was due to the obsolescence of the instrument which we all had to try to use to achieve the result which most people desired.
Although the Bill will provide negotiating machinery which will have the result—so far as any negotiating machinery can—which I have indicated, it will not solve either the problems of manning or the problems of remuneration inside the profession. These are problems with which the Secretary of State will have to concern himself under the powers being handed to him by the Bill, and they will remain to some extent controversial responsibilities whoever is in office.
The problems of remuneration cannot be solved simply by emptying a bucket of gold over any profession, and the Bill does not facilitate that. The real problems of manning and remuneration depend upon particular localities; upon grades of teachers; upon giving adequate weightage to length of service as distinct from starting remuneration; upon the whole incomes policy of any Government. And these things will remain within the range of the Minister's discretion, up to a point, as a party inside the negotiating machinery and as the focus of whatever Resolution the House may in future pass under Clause 5. These things are inescapable from the possession of office.
I hope that whoever is Secretary of State—whether it is the right hon. Gentleman whom I have known for many years, or somebody from this side of the House—will have the sympathy and understanding of the House in discharging those responsibilities. They are not easy ones. They are difficult and lonely ones, and in this field they are not ones in which either the big battalions or any one set of teachers' organisations is necessarily right.
The Secretary of State is being pushed in different directions at the same time by different bodies of perfectly reputable teachers, representing different interests inside the profession, and the House must accord the Secretary of State who


is so burdened, as the right hon. Gentleman is now burdened, with a very considerable measure of understanding and support, because, if Parliament does not do it, let me tell the House that nobody else will.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT BILL (changed to MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL)

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 6.—(INTERPRETATION AND SHORT TITLE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 25, leave out "Machinery of Government" and insert "Ministers of the Crown."

10.54 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The hour is late, and Christmas is too near to make a quarrel with another place a worth-while undertaking. It is possible that, by changing the short title of the Bill from the Machinery of Government Bill to the Ministers of the Crown Bill, the noble Lords in another place are registering a mild rebuke to this House for having got the short title wrong. I prefer to think that their Lordships are teasing this House in making one Amendment to the Bill, and one only, that of the short title of the Bill. This new short title, Ministers of the Crown Bill, was of course thought of by the Government before the Bill was introduced, but it was rejected as an appropriate title to the Bill; we believed that this was fundamentally a machinery of government Bill, because it dealt with the machinery of government.
We believed that "machinery" was written all over the Bill and occurred right through it, and that the Bill was erecting the framework of new Departments, providing for their creation, and also for the payment of salaries of Ministers. I notice that, in the course of the debate in another place, the noble Lord,

Lord Dilhorne, at one point suggested that it was not perhaps appropriate to discuss the functions of one of the proposed new Ministers, as that was scarcely within the framework of the Bill. I was very interested to read that remark, because I spent twelve hours in this House trying to convince hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that to discuss the functions of the proposed new Ministers was not within the scope of the Bill. I notice that, in another place, the argument was so convincing that it passed without comment or rebuttal, which vindicates, if I may say so, all that I said in the course of that long night's sitting.
So, although it is more a machinery of government Bill than it is a Ministers of the Crown Bill, I think that this House would be disposed to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. After all, it is the substance of the Bill which counts, and not the title, and we have the substance of the Bill. The noble Lords moved to strike, but feared to amend—except the short title of the Bill. That, if I may say so with all due respect, is just the sort of behaviour which we expect from the noble Lords.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is really incorrigible. We have tried to persuade him that the way in which to get his business through quickly is not to make provocative speeches, even when there is only one member—and in this case, there are two—on the Opposition Front Bench. This inevitably provokes them to reply, and replies, even the best replies, take time. This will not take a very long time.
We have, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the substance of the Bill—that is to say, three unnecessary Ministers and the suspension of a salutary constitutional rule, which we have maintained, in order to preserve the independence of this House, for 250 years. Why this should be described as the Machinery of Government Bill rather than the Ministers of the Crown Bill, he did not explain. As he has now given way on one point at least—and under pressure from another place—I do not suppose that we ought to do other than to describe this, in him, as a certain measure of conciliation, although in most other people it would have been regarded as a highly provocative statement of a contentious case.
However, the right hon. Gentleman, inspired by the approach of Christmas, only insulted another place twice. Although I have a natural and benevolent affection for that other place—which of course does not override my loyalty to this one but which still affords it an affectionate place in my memory—I think that we ought to account this to him for a measure of grace, and perhaps we can give him his Bill without any more fuss.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LITTER ACT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

11.0 p.m.

Sir Rupert Speir: I am glad to have an opportunity before the House rises for the Christmas Recess of drawing the attention of the House to the working of the Litter Act. Since I was eventually successful—I say "eventually" because it took three Sessions to pilot the Litter Act on to the Statute Book—in getting that Act on the Statute Book, I have, deliberately, seldom raised this subject in the House. I mention the fact because my name has been invariably linked with the passing of the Litter Act, although I have had the pleasure of sponsoring three other Bills in the House, all of which were a great deal more complicated than the Litter Act, and I fear that it may be thought that I have litter on the brain.
I have tried not to be too much of a fusspot and not to be an extremist on the subject of litter. Certainly I do not want to see Britain going to the extremes which I believe exist in the Soviet Union where one can be fined if one has a dirty car. I always think that if one exaggerates one's case one is inclined to weaken it. But I fear that there is very little danger of exaggerating the litter problem in a great many parts of Great Britain at the moment. I feel that as the Act has been in operation for over six years, it is perhaps time that we examined its working, to see whether it is working at all and to see how the police, the courts and the local authorities are doing their respective jobs.
I ought, perhaps, to declare an interest in that not only was I the sponsor of the Litter Act but I am also a Vice-President of the Keep Britain Tidy Group. That is a group which has been living financially on a shoestring for the past 10 years. It has done the most valiant work in trying to keep Britain tidy and clean and a beautiful land in which to live. The group was originally formed in 1954 on the initiative of the National Federation of Women's Institutes. It is an all-party, or perhaps I should say a non-party, group, privileged to have the Queen Mother as its Patron, the Princess Royal as its President, and the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, as a Vice-President. We have a most excellent chairman in Lady Brunner, who, when she is not devoting all her energies to trying to keep Britain tidy, is, I believe, doing her best to get more Liberal representatives in Parliament—and in some respects there is room for that. The group also has a most enthusiastic and energetic secretary, and, I need hardly say, an underpaid staff.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he cannot do or say anything more than Parliamentary Secretaries can usually do or say in debates of this kind, that at least he should undertake to try to persuade his Department to look at the absolute pittance which they reluctantly dole out each year to help the finances of the Keep Britain Tidy Group. I do not think that their contribution has averaged more than about £2,000 a year. On one occasion it went up to £5,000, but the average is about £2,000 a year. After all, the work which this group does, in so far as it discourages the scattering of litter in the streets and roads of Britain, saves the ratepayers vast sums of money, for the collection of litter is an exceedingly costly business. It is estimated that it costs £13 million a year to clear up the litter in the streets of England and Wales and that it costs more than £100,000 in Brighton alone to remove litter from the streets and beaches. I hope that we can expect from the new Government at least a new broom.
This is a brief debate and I must not speak for too long. I regard this as the opening shot in a campaign to start to turn the heat on the litter lout. To put it in a nutshell, I do not think that anyone could possibly suggest that in


Britain today we are taking the anti-litter campaign anything like seriously enough.
The National Benzole Company, which has been extremely generous in its financial contributions to the Keep Britain Tidy Group, has collected some startling facts and figures. Last year, for example, no less than 6,000 car owners dumped unwanted vehicles on public highways. About 30,000 television sets were thrown onto one open space and 30 tons of scrap and rubbish were removed from one lay-by in Essex. Three truck loads of litter are removed from Waterloo Station daily, and 6½ million milk bottles disappear every week. Every night of the year 30 litter bugs dump the equivalent of four lorry loads of refuse in the Borough of Kensington. Last year the average man threw away four times his own weight in rubbish.
Although the Litter Act has been in operation for six years, Britain remains a rather "scruffy" country. In fact, we are in the running for becoming one of the dirtiest countries in the world, and I agree with Dr. Beeching who is reported as saying the other day that the British are a "filthy people".
Why is this? The answer is partly because this is a densely populated island and partly, no doubt, because we are now living in a wrapping-age—when everything comes to us packed in paper or polythene, in cartons, cans or bottles. But that is really no excuse for scattering litter about in public. Nor do I believe that there is any excuse for the authorities—in the form of the police, the courts or the local authorities—ignoring the provisions of the Litter Act or implementing it so half-heartedly.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the overwhelming mass of the population supports the provisions of the Litter Act and are keen to see the Measure implemented. After all, the Act is the law of the land; yet the police are not enforcing it—at least, nothing like adequately. There are now about 2,500 successful prosecutions a year, but I understand that nearly all of them are initiated not by the police but by local authorities. I also believe that in some areas, including the Metropolitan police area, the police are reluctant to prosecute.
Why should this be so? It is against the law of the land to scatter litter, so why should the police be allowed to turn a blind eye to these offences? I appreciate that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not answer for the Home Office, but he does represent the Government and I urge him to consider this aspect of the matter and agree to discuss it with his colleagues at the Home Office. It simply cannot be in the best interests of good Government for an Act of Parliament openly and flagrantly to be broken in the presence of the police and for no action to be taken. The Keep Britain Tidy Group informs me that its members have had several reports of policemen watching litter offences being committed and yet taking no action. If we are to have any hope of keeping Britain tidy, this attitude must be changed, and changed by the Government.
There are those who would advocate that the system, common on the Continent, of fines on the spot should now be introduced here. As we now have traffic wardens, with their parking tickets, this is not such a novel and revolutionary proposal. The Government ought to be giving serious consideration to its possible introduction, more especially if the police authorities take the line that they cannot spare the men or the time to operate the Litter Act.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have some positive suggestions to make. I accept the fact that much of the responsibility for implementing the Act must devolve on the local authorities. I also agree that the local authorities must pander to the public, and provide plenty of suitable litter bins, and ensure that they are cleaned out at regular intervals—because there is nothing worse than an overflowing bin. The local authorities must also be encouraged to offer, and to make public that they do offer, a free service of refuse collection. That is particularly necessary for dealing with the problem of bulk litter. In the end, if Britain is to be kept tidy, we must look for greater support and encouragement of the anti-litter campaign from the central Government which, by and large, must mean the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Would it really be too much to ask the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department should consider, some time next


summer—perhaps at the start of a Bank Holiday—launching, or helping to launch, a national Keep Britain Tidy week? I would be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would give this idea, and the other ideas I have put forward, the most careful and sympathetic consideration.

11.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I support with all the force at my disposal every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Sir R. Speir) has just spoken. The state of our streets and highways and other public places is becoming a scandal. Not only do we have paper to contend with, but far more durable things. People forget that modern wrappings, composed very largely of plastic materials, last much longer in the weather they are almost indestructible.
There are also the very solid bits of hardware which my hon. Friend mentioned, the motor cars, the television sets, the old stoves and other bits of household paraphernalia with which the countryside is littered. It is not only the countryside—we find this even in some of the small gardens in the squares of the City of London. I have the very doubtful privilege of living in the Royal Borough of Kensington where, as my hon. Friend has just said, some of the streets are a positive disgrace.
I am well aware that at the present time in the big cities, and in London particularly, there is the very grave difficulty of a great deal of street-side parking. If there are rows of motor cars along the sides of the streets, it is quite impossible for those responsible for street cleansing to get the job properly done. I suggest that local authority street cleansing and refuse collection teams should be as one. Much of the lack of effective street cleansing results from its being done by individuals with very little supervision, and without the proper modern equipment.
If we had teams of men—and women, if necessary; women are very often much better cleansers than men—going round, properly equipped, and if the police were to see to it that cars were cleared from the streets in rotation so that proper cleansing could take place, and if, just

before the cleansing operation took place there was collection of garbage, so that we did not have cleansed streets being littered with garbage as is so often the case, we would see some improvement in the streets of our cities.
I want particularly to stress the problem of garbage collection. It is apparent, not only in London and Kensington, but in Somerset, in the country, where I also live, close to my constituency, that much of the blame rests with those who are supposed to collect and deposit garbage into vehicles. Naturally, this often has to be done on windy days and loose sheets of newspaper and other light material is easily blown out of dustbins, but little or no attempt is made to clear up the mess as they go along.
This is the Ministry for local government, and if a proper direction were given about street cleansing and a clean method of collecting garbage, we would see a great improvement. It is all very well to leave this problem to voluntary effort, but it is time that the Government—which has the necessary legislation—took a hand in seeing that we keep Britain tidy.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I welcome the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Sir R. Speir) because the question of litter has long been on my brain, too. Litter on the brain does not matter; what matters is that litter is on our streets and highways. I support my hon. Friend in saying that it is up to the Government to take a good deal more action in this matter.
In two minutes I can only make six suggestions. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut. Commander Maydon) said, there is first the problem of hardware deposited on our highways and byways. I referred to this matter in an Adjournment debate on 15th May last and I beg the Minister to read what I then said as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 779 to 787, for that day. I suggested that scrap dealers should be licensed; that the penalties for leaving this litter on high roads should be increased because at present they are derisory; and, thirdly, I suggested that local authorities should cooperate in effective methods of disposing


of useless metallic junk, as is done in the United States and on the Continent.
Then, secondly, there is the urban problem. I also live in Kensington. Often the streets of Kensington and Chelsea look as if a paper-chase has just been held in them. A minority of people are responsible for this nuisance. Local authorities could help by having litter boxes placed, not on alternate lamp-posts, but on all lamp-posts, which could be emptied by scavengers. My hon. Friend suggested that people who drop litter should be fined on the spot. I finally suggest that, because a minority of parents fail to bring up their children properly, instruction should be given in schools making it clear to children that it is anti-social and unselfish to deposit litter in the streets and in the countryside.

11.19 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): It is a great pleasure to me to take part in this debate which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Hexham (Sir R. Speir), because, although I have not been associated with him on matters concerning litter I was concerned with him on matters affecting noise and I know the skill and devotion with which he gets these pieces of legislation on to the Statute Book.
It is very natural that he should want to look at the working of the Act six or six-and-a-half years after it came into operation. I agree with him that the experience, on the whole, has been disappointing. It seems to me a pity that it has not been more effective in keeping up with the understandable growth in litter for reasons which the hon. Member mentioned—the growth in the use of wrapping and package materials, and so on.
I agree with the hon. Member, and it cannot be too much emphasised, that litter is costly and dangerous. It is not simply a question of bullying somebody for dropping a cigarette paper from his pocket. A great deal of damage is done to animals and injury is caused to children at the seaside. A great deal of inconvenience is caused to and much expense is incurred by local authorities as a result of refuse disposal and cleansing services having to do extra work. We

are at one in emphasising that this is a serious problem which should be taken seriously.
When the hon. Member rebuked the Government for giving merely a pittance to the Keep Britain Tidy movement I was inclined to intervene to say that I did not need to stand in a white sheet over that. It is only fair to say that support of the movement is only part of the Government's expenditure. The C.O.I. and my Department do other work in co-operating in propaganda and educational work. The Keep Britain Tidy movement is excellent. I am not for a moment decrying it, but it is an entirely voluntary body. The figures which the hon. Member gave were rather like the figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) was discussing yesterday when it was pointed out that if one man got a sentence of 22 years and another one of four years and one said that the average was 13 years it did not help very much.
Over three years from 1958 a sum of £1,500 was given to the movement. In 1961, that was raised to £2,000. In 1964–65, the organisation asked for £10,000 and it received a deficiency grant up to a maximum of £5,000. The movement asked for £10,000 for 1965–66 and it received £5,000. I know that discussions are now going on. That is the sort of fatuous remark that Parliamentary Secretaries have to make, but if I said more I should get into trouble. A sum of £10,000 would be something like 80 per cent. of the total revenue of the organisation, which for a voluntary organisation is, I think, getting rather much, but discussion is going on about the grant and I am not in a position to say anything final about it.
The hon. Member mentioned enforcement and he said that there was reluctance to prosecute. I can only say as a member of a London local authority that in my time I have had reports from the police to consider for prosecution. We are not a particularly clean borough, next door to Kensington, but we have always prosecuted in any case where the police have brought us evidence. But it is one thing to want to prosecute and another thing to get the evidence. It is not easy to obtain. People are reluctanct to snoop on others, and unless a person is actually


caught committing the offence it is difficult to do anything about it. As the hon. Member said, this is really for the Home Department, but I do not want to ride out of our responsibility for an important matter.
As was said yesterday, it is true that detection is probably more important than severity of punishment. To get a higher proportion of prosecutions and people thinking that this is serious and that business is meant is more important than having heavy fines which are not enforced because no one is caught.

Mr. Longden: rose—

Mr. MacColl: I will give way if I finish in time, but I do not want to be discourteous by missing some of the points which have been put to me.
I quite agree about the importance of preventive measures. If local authorities do not provide an adequate supply of litter bins and if refuse collection is not frequent and reliable it is not surprising that litter gets scattered about and people leave things by the side of a wall and run away, which, certainly in London, is a common thing to see.
I did not quite understand what was meant by the suggestion to merge refuse collection and street cleansing into one service. In a sense they are one service, because in most places they are, I think, under the same director of cleansing.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I meant co-ordinating the two efforts, which so often are done separately and without supervision, to have them clone together and with supervision.

Mr. MacColl: One difficulty is that most towns are lucky to get two house-to-house collections of refuse a week, whereas in most places there is, I hope, more than that in the way of a regular street cleansing service. I know how quickly a street can be disfigured in London after one good night's celebrations at the weekend. As has been said, it is important to let people feel that the local authorities are playing their part in wanting to co-operate in keeping down the spread of litter.
The question of penalties and whether they should be on-the-spot penalties are

 matters which would require legislation, and in an Adjournment debate it is probably wise not to trespass into that aspect. Certainly, they are matters which will be kept very much in our minds when we are considering any possible future legislation.
I quite agree that education needs to be extended. It is important to apply it not only in schools, but to adult organisations. In the Keep Britain Tidy movement, the name of Lady Brunner indicates a close parental relationship with Women's Institutes. This is clearly a case where the active participation of bodies like the Women's Institutes can be of tremendous value in long-term education.
As to the problem of the heavy and bulky refuse, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) was, perhaps, a little unfair in asking me to read the earlier debate. Unless he was asking me to read another debate, I was present on that occasion and took part in it. I remember the hon. Member making the same speech, which I can hardly believe so accomplished a parliamentary performer as the hon. Member would have made twice. Probably something more than the Litter Act is required to cope with scrap cars and that sort of thing. That is, perhaps, something which should be looked at in the context of future highway legislation.
I conclude by saying that this is a matter in which I and my Department are anxious to do all we can to help. The honeymoon period is still on. We are still new in our responsibilities, but I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Government feel very strongly the importance of doing something about litter. They are anxious that the problem should be taken seriously and that everything should be done to help in education in this direction. They are anxious that local authorities should be as constructive and helpful as they can.
If it is true—of which I have no evidence—that either the police or the local authorities do not take the matter sufficiently seriously as to want to enforce the law, I am sure that that is certainly not what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Minister would want.

Mr. Longden: May I say that the Hertfordshire police take the matter very seriously and that no fewer than 600 prosecutions have been undertaken in the last year, but that the difficulty is that it just is not worth their while because the maximum fine is derisory. I beg the

hon. Gentleman to tell this to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.